HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 05-03 City Council Manager Workshop PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 P.M. Monday, May 3, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Human Relations Commission Discussion
2. Organized Collection Discussion
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAND
WORKSHOP AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Chuck Bethel, City Attorney for HR/Labor Relations
SUBJECT: Human Relations Commission
DATE: April 22, 2010
INTRODUCTION:
AGENDA ITEM E1
Pursuant to interest expressed by the Council I am submitting this report to review the history of
the Maplewood Human Relations Commission (HRC) and facilitate discussion regarding the
possible re- establishment of the HRC in Maplewood.
HISTORY OF THE HRC IN MAPLEWOOD:
The Maplewood Human Relations Commission was created by City Ordinance on April 18,
1968 and was a seven - member committee. In October of 2004 the HRC was down to three
members and was not meeting due to not having enough members for a quorum. In January
2005 the council moved to suspend the HRC and directed staff to examine the current mission
statement and goals of the commission and to propose revisions to better suit the climate and
diversity of the community.
Two prior memos were provided to the Council on this topic since the suspension of the HRC in
2005. The first was a detailed memo from Karen Guilfoile, of June 6, 2006 setting forth the idea
of a "Maplewood Community Outreach Committee. " Fashioned in the vein of a "Welcome
Wagon" format, the idea was to provide newcomers with information including, but not limited
to, the following:
• A Community Center brochure including guest passes so that new residents can visit the
facility
• Information and opportunities on the Nature Center
• The City News including the Park & Recreation issue showing recreation programs
available
• City hall services — motor vehicle, DNR and passports
• Councilmember information and include Senate and Legislative Members
• Polling places and election information
• Licensed trash haulers and recycling schedules
• Off street parking information
The second memo, also from Ms. Guilfoile, served mainly to reintroduce the topic at the
February 16, 2010 meeting, to consider whether the topic should be brought forward again at a
workshop. A copy of both memos, in their entirety, is attached hereto for your convenience.
Packet page number 3 of 12
DISCUSSION:
Generally, the scope and mission of Human Relations Commissions was well stated by Dr. Leo
Parvis, Chaska Human Rights Commissioner, who said:
"The purpose of the Commission is to secure for all citizens, through education and
prevention, equal opportunities for employment, housing, public information, public services,
education, fair treatment, and full participation in affairs of the community. The
Commission's mission is to proactively partner with government, business, educators,
religious, service and other organizations to promote a community of harmony and respect
for the rights and dignity of all."
In Ms. Guilfoile's memo of June 6, 2006 she provides the mission of the Maplewood HRC as it
was established previously:
The mission of the HRC, in partnership with the State Department of Human Rights, is to secure
for all citizens equal opportunity in housing, employment, public accommodations, public
services and education and to work consistently to improve the human relations climate of the
community. The HRC is not charged with specific duties but sponsors and promotes activities
for Maplewood residents that increase sensitivity and awareness of diversity in our community,
advises the Mayor, city council and other city commissions of human relations issues and offers
no -fault grievance mediation services to the residents of Maplewood.
Based on the historical perspective provided through review of the memos and conversations
with Ms. Guilfoile, it appears that some of the reasons the previous HRC was suspended
included a diminished interest by commissioners at the time, possibly fueled in part by a belief
that real, substantive help was not being provided by the HRC (i.e. simply doing poster contests
seemed inconsequential and ineffective). Another reason seemed to be that there were so many
other entities, both state and local, (i.e. the EEOC and MN Dept. of Human Rights) that were set
up to specifically address many of the same issues, that the HRC at the local level seemed
unnecessary and even redundant. In any event, it became difficult to attract new commissioners
or to get enough of the serving commissioners to show up for the meetings and have a quorum.
However, a lot has changed both in Maplewood and beyond since 2004. Maplewood, like many
other cities, businesses and families, is not doing as well financially in 2010 as it was in 2004.
Further, Maplewood like many other cities is changing demographically. Based on the 2000
Census information when compared to an American Community Survey done in 2008, minority
populations within the City grew between 50 to 90 percent. It is anticipated that when the City
receives its information from the 2010 Census those results will demonstrate that such growth is
continuing. Therefore, as there will likely be more issues arising with regard to the changing
demographics and faltering economy, re- establishing the HRC can be considered a proactive and
preventative measure in anticipation of these changes.
While the goal of the HRC will certainly be to provide equal opportunities in housing, education
and employment to members of those minorities, the true benefit of re- establishing the HRC will
Packet page number 4 of 12
be to help Maplewood citizens recognize, appreciate and celebrate diversity in all its forms.
Although a certain amount of assimilation is necessary for any population moving into a city or
country with different laws and customs, a certain amount of understanding and celebration of
the differences between those populations is also important in maximizing the quality of life for
all concerned. A successful HRC could help Maplewood become more of a salad bowl, where
each ingredient brings its own taste and value into the mix, rather than the traditional view of a
melting pot where everything is homogenized and differences are "resolved" rather than
celebrated. The fact that Maplewood has just recently formed the BEDC is also fortuitous as re-
establishing the HRC now will allow it to work with the BEDC in developing minority -owned
and/or other alternative business opportunities for Maplewood
Because of the changing times, there may also be more interest in a re- established HRC
performing an adjudicative function in resolving neighborhood conflicts between local families
and/or businesses. While this is a substantive role that is performed by other human relation
commissions, to my understanding it was never utilized to any extent in the previous Maplewood
HRC. Likewise, another substantive goal could be advocating for the passage of ordinances
regarding the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws. Many other cities' /Human Relations
committees have successfully advocated for the passage of such ordinances (a copy of the city
human relation commissions which have done so and a brief description of the ordinances is
attached hereto for your convenience).
While I think that taking on more substantive goals as set forth above are important in re-
establishing the HRC, the ideas set forth in Ms. Guilfoile's memo of June 6, 2006 are also
important and should also be considered when evaluating what the HRC should be doing and
setting its course.
If the Council decides to move forward in re- establishing the Maplewood HRC it should
recognize that some changes need to be made in how the HRC is organized and run so that it
does not experience the same sort of problems that led to its abandonment. Specifically, the
Council should:
1. Establish a new mission statement that is neither:
a. too narrow, thereby limiting the HRC from accomplishing its goals
because it lacks flexibility; or
b. too broad, thereby placing it in danger from spinning its wheels
because it is so broad in its scope it cannot get anything
substantive accomplished.
2. Designate a Council Liaison who is strongly committed to getting the HRC re-
established and who will be able to devote sufficient time and energy to this
project; and
3. Determine how many members will be required to conduct the business of the
Commission and recruit and appoint top - quality committed people as members;
and
4. Direct the City Manager to appoint staff support that is also committed to re-
establishing the HRC and can contribute meaningfully to that goal. Specifically,
Packet page number 5 of 12
the staff liaison should have a background and/or experience conducive to
meeting the goals and expectations set forth by the Council.
While I believe all the points set forth above are important, the key to success for re- establishing
the commission probably lies in number 3 above, specifically recruiting and appointing top
quality committed people. I realize this is much easier said than done. I suggest that the Council
develop some desirable goals /criteria for appointment. For instance, I think it might be wise to
seek a variety of backgrounds and experience. A short list of the type of people whose experience
and backgrounds might prove valuable could include:
1. A person with a background /experience in housing.
2. A person with a background /experience in education.
3. A lawyer with a background /experience in housing, education, civil rights.
4. A person who is representative of business interests in Maplewood.
While I also think it is important to seek members who are residents of Maplewood, I think the
Council should also consider one or two at -large members, perhaps from one of the surrounding
communities like Saint Paul or North St. Paul, particularly if there were some highly qualified
and motivated people from outside the City who expressed a strong interest in serving on the
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the changing demographics for Maplewood, and the
likelihood that there will be a greater ongoing need for the type of services such a commission
could provide, determine what goals and services can be readily provided, determine what
criteria for commission members should be, and re- establish the Maplewood HRC pursuant to
the guidelines set forth above.
Packet page number 6 of 12
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item E2
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Steve Kummer, Engineer
John Helcl, Public Administration Intern
SUBJECT: Organized Collection Discussion
DATE: April 26, 2010 for the May 3 City Council Workshop
INTRODUCTION
Maplewood has an open waste collection system which allows any number of waste haulers to
remove waste in any area of the city with a license. The city's solid waste management
ordinance (Sections 30 -1 to 30 -108) requires all businesses and residences to contract with a
licensed waste hauler to remove garbage and refuse. There are currently nine licensed waste
haulers in the city.
Due to environmental and economic concerns regarding multiple waste haulers, many
municipalities in Minnesota have organized their waste collection system allowing only one or a
few haulers to service their city. Minnesota Statutes, section 115A.94 (Organized Collection)
gives municipalities the authority to organize waste and recycling collection methods. The
statute was adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 1987. The statute was changed in 1990
and the next few years to add requirements that ensure inclusion of haulers and the public in
the organization process such as a 90 -day planning period, a 90 -day negotiation period, and the
requirements for findings. As a result, the organized collection statute became a more difficult
process to navigate for municipalities.
According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Analysis of Waste Collection
Service Arrangements study (June 2009), prior to the organized collection statute in 1985 there
were 30 municipalities with organized or municipally- provided collection in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. In 1993, prior to major changes to the statute, the number was reported to
have increased to 44. Between 1993 and 2000, after changes to the statute, the number
remained stable at 44 and has not increased substantially since.
Maplewood has attempted to organize its waste hauling system twice since 1986. Both
attempts failed due to lack of support by residents and haulers. There has been recent interest
expressed by residents, the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission, and the
City Council to review the city's open waste collection system once again. This report is
intended to outline the background of this recent interest, the city's history of organized
collection attempts, and the statutory requirements for organizing collection services.
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the ENR Commission chose to review the city's open collection waste hauling system
as one of their goals. This goal was chosen to address concerns by the commission and
residents on the environmental impacts of multiple waste haulers collecting trash within the city
limits. The commission appointed Commissioners Trippler and Lynne to serve on a
Packet page number 7 of 12
subcommittee to do research on the topic and bring that information back to the full commission
for review.
June 2009 Commissioners Trippler and Lynne presented their preliminary findings to the ENR
Commission as a whole. Their findings are outlined in the attached "Waste Hauling in
Maplewood Outline from the Sub - committee" document (Attachment 1).
August 2009 representatives of the MPCA presented the results of their organized collection
study ( www.12ca. state. mn. us /oea /Ic /colIectionservice.cfm #about This study was conducted to
develop quantifiable data comparing open and organized collection of waste and recycling as it
relates to economics, impacts on the environment, efficiency and effectiveness, and energy
reductions. In summary the study found that the primary advantage cited for open systems is
the ability for people to choose their own hauler. The customer is in control, making the
decisions to hire whoever is providing service in the community. It also allows haulers to find
the lowest cost disposal option, which can improve their competitive advantages. The study
found that the primary potential advantages of organized collection are three -fold — lower prices,
reduced truck traffic, and community control over decisions related to waste management.
Based on the ENR Commission's waste hauling subcommittee findings and the results of the
MPCA study, the ENR Commission recommended that city staff draft a report on organized
collection which includes information on the environmental and economic impacts.
In 2010 the ENR Commission again chose the review of organized collection as a goal and
added Commissioner Schreiner to the subcommittee. The organized collection subcommittee
will be assisting city staff on the review of organized collection.
DISCUSSION
Organized Collection Statutory Requirements
Minnesota Statute, section 473.803 requires metropolitan counties to plan and implement
activities to meet the state's policy for solid waste management. Overall, local governments are
responsible for ensuring that solid waste generated in their jurisdictions is managed in an
environmentally and economically sound manner that protects public health and safety. Solid
waste management is strongly grounded in the need to safeguard the environment, conserve
and recover material and energy resources, and protect public health and safety. Thus, cities
and counties are ultimately accountable to the public they serve to successfully plan and
implement activities to meet the state policy and the corresponding goals established in the
solid waste management plans.
Minnesota Statute, section 115A.94 (Organized Collection) sets forth the process by which a
county, city or town may organize collection. Following is a summary of the statutory process:
County Organized Collection
• A county may adopt an ordinance requiring a city or town within the county to organize
collection.
2
Packet page number 8 of 12
A county may itself organize collection in any city or town that does not comply with the
county's organized collection ordinance.
The process used by a county in these cases is the same process that cities must use
(outlined below).
City /Town Organized Collection
• Notice of Hearing: A city /town (municipality) must give notice to the public and must mail
notice to all solid waste collectors operating in the municipality of the intent to organize
collection. The notice must be given two weeks before the scheduled public hearing and
must invite interested persons to participate in planning and establishing the organized
collection system.
• Public Hearing: The municipality must hold a public hearing to consider organized
collection. If the municipality chooses to proceed, the governing body must adopt a
resolution of intent. It must be passed 180 days before an organized collection system is
implemented.
• 90 -Day Planning Period: After adoption of the resolution of intent, the municipality must
develop, or supervise the development of, plans for organized collection. The planning
process must invite the assistance of solid waste collectors in the municipality.
• 90 -Day Negotiation Period: After the planning period, the municipality must discuss the
organized collection arrangements with all licensed solid waste collectors who have
expressed interest in participating in organized collection. If the municipality is not able to
agree on a system with a majority of collectors who have expressed interest, or upon
expiration of the 90 -day period, the municipality can propose an alternate method of
organizing.
• Findings: To document its decision, the municipality must make findings that describe and
detail the procedures to plan and attempt implementation of organized collection, and
evaluate the proposed organized collection method in light of the following standards:
o Achieving the stated organized collection goals of the municipality,
o Minimizing displacement of collectors,
o Ensuring participation of all interested parties in the decision making process, and
o Maximizing efficiency in solid waste collection.
o No one factor is determinative and other local considerations may be relevant.
• Implementation: After all these steps are taken, and after at least 180 days from the
adoption of the resolution of intent, the municipality can proceed to implement its organized
collection plan which will require amendments to the municipalities' collection ordinances.
This process has its own statutory requirements and could take three months to one year to
accomplish.
Using the minimum time periods specified in the statute, the statutory process could take from
six months to one year; the ordinance amendments will add an additional three months to one
year; for an estimated overall time period of two years to organize collection within the city.
Maplewood and Ramsey County Organized Collection Attempts
There have been three attempts in the past to organize solid waste collection in Maplewood as
follows:
3
Packet page number 9 of 12
198611987
The City Council created a Solid Waste and Recycling Committee to study the issue of
organized collection from February to June 1987. The committee recommended that policy be
adopted using a consortium of haulers for complete and comprehensive organized collection.
On August 10, 1987, the City Council voted 3 to 2 to draft an ordinance and hold a public
hearing on implementing organized waste collection. On November 23, 1987, the City Council
held a public hearing and voted unanimously to adopt a resolution of intent to study organized
collection. Due to lack of interest by citizens during the process, the city's attempt to organize
was dropped months later.
199511996
A question regarding organized collection on a City of Maplewood Community Survey indicated
that 57 percent of the city's residents supported some form of organized collection. Based on
this interest, the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to set a hearing to consider
organized collection on March 11, 1995. During the hearing a dozen residents spoke against
organizing, with only three residents supporting the idea. Regardless of this poor showing of
support, the City Council adopted the resolution of intent.
Following the adoption of the resolution, the city held meetings with haulers to determine the
parameters of an organized collection system (services, costs, routing issues, etc.). Haulers
submitted a counterproposal for the city to institute some restrictions within an open hauling
system such as voluntarily limiting truck traffic through routing changes. During a citizen forum
on August 5, 1995, the issue was dismissed based on hauler and resident opposition.
200112002
Ramsey and Washington Counties created a joint study on organized collection and began
exploration into the attempt. According to news articles, several thousand homeowners mailed
postcards to both counties fighting the proposal to pursue organized collection, with industry
groups reportedly coordinating the campaign.
Environmental and Safety Impacts
The implementation of an organized waste collection system within the city will have a number
of positive environmental impacts on neighborhoods. These impacts will come from the overall
reduction in the number of hauler trucks providing service throughout the city as follows:
• Reduced Vehicle Emissions: Basic chemistry illustrates that burning one gallon of diesel
fuel creates about twenty pounds of carbon dioxide. Vehicle emissions also contain certain
amounts of carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide and particulates due to incomplete
combustion. Reducing the number of hauling vehicles traveling the same sections of roads
is a reduction in the amount of fuel burned.
• Reduced noise: A common complaint regarding waste haulers is the amount of noise that
their operation produces, especially early in the morning. Some noise complaints are due to
residential areas next to businesses that have early morning waste hauling. Having an
organized system would help the city better control starting hours and noise produced by
4
Packet page number 10 of 12
hauling operations. With a reduction in hauling trips, noise is isolated to a discrete time of
day.
Increase in Pavement Life: The 2002 Ramsey County Solid Waste Hauling Study included
comments that one waste hauling truck is the equivalent of adding 1,125 passenger car trips
to a roadway. Pavements under loading typically fail due to repeated fatigue stresses that
steadily pull the pavement section apart from the bottom up causing cracks at the surface.
Water enters these fatigue cracks and causes problems such as freeze -thaw damage in
Minnesota's climate. Waste hauling trucks are the heaviest type of vehicle on Maplewood's
streets. Reducing these loads and possibly restricting load weights during spring thaw will
extend pavement life.
• Reduced Litter and Increased Aesthetics: Having an organized collection scheme will
standardize the way refuse is placed at the curb. The use of standardized collection bins
and rules on use of the bins can reduce litter, reduce rodent or other animal intrusions, and
increase neighborhood aesthetics on trash days. Also, with fewer waste hauler vehicles
providing service, chances of litter from trash can tipping into trucks is reduced.
• Reduction in Illegal Dumping: Other cities with organized collection have seen a decrease
in illegal dumping since refuse contracts with haulers typically include provisions for bulk
pick -up. As well, those that currently do not pay for garbage service yet dump their trash in
someone else's bin will be responsible for their own trash.
• Increased Safety: A common hazard with any delivery or hauling operation in
neighborhoods is the potential for pedestrians and bicyclists to be in the path of vehicles that
stop frequently. Reducing the amount of vehicles on roadways that have delivery stops will
decrease this potentially hazardous situation.
Organized Collection Panel Discussion
On April 27, 2010, the City of Golden Valley Environmental Commission held a panel discussion
focusing on solid waste collection practices in the Twin Cities area. There were representatives
from the cities of Golden Valley, Maplewood, Robbinsdale, Roseville, St. Louis Park, Plymouth,
and Edina and representatives from the MPCA, Foth, and Waste Management. Maplewood
was represented by Steve Kummer, engineer; John Helcl, public administration intern; and
Commissioners Trippler and Lynne. The panel discussed various aspects of organizing and
each city's attempts to organize in the past. The group will continue their discussions and share
information as each city moves forward with their process.
RECOMMENDATION
Offer direction and feedback on the prospect of the city organizing our waste hauling system. At
a minimum, staff recommends that the City Council direct the Organized Collection Work Group,
consisting of three Environmental and Natural Resources Commissioners and city staff, to
prepare a report on the pros and cons of the city's current open waste hauling system compared
with an organized system, and if deemed warranted, to compile a work plan for proceeding with
the organized collection process.
Attachment: ENR Commission Organized Collection Subcommittee Report
5
Packet page number 11 of 12
Attachment 1
Waste Hauling in Maplewood
Outline from the Sub- committee
By Commissioners: Carole Lynne and Dale Trippler
May 5, 2009
I. Waste Generation and Disposal Facts: Background
information.
Minnesota taxpayers own 93 closed landfills located throughout the state. So far
you have paid over $76 M in general obligation bonds to repair and maintain 52
Us. The state has recovered $17M through cost recovery efforts. Last year the
MPCA spent $18 M working on those Us in the Closed Landfill Program. So
far, the state has spent over $294 M on those closed landfills.
(Go to www.pca.state.mn.us to find the Annual Report to the Legislature from the
CLP for more information on this issue.)
II. Best way to go?
A. Do not generate the waste in the first place.
B. Minimize waste generation as much as possible.
C. Recycle as much as you can.
III. Principle Factors Affecting Waste Hauling Options.
A. Economic Considerations
B. Environmental Considerations
C. Aesthetic Considerations
D. Greater Control over QA /QC
IV. Economic Considerations.
A. Cost savings on road repairs
B. Lower Cost per Customer based on Competitive Bidding.
V. Environmental Considerations.
A. Less gas and/or diesel burned
B. Less CO emitted into the atmosphere
C. Able to direct waste to best environmental destination
VI. Aesthetics and QA /QC
A. Less traffic, noise, and dust
B. Safer streets
C. Better look during collection days
D. Greater leverage to correct any problems with service Packet page number 12 of 12