HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 02-07 City Council/Manager Workshop Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15P.M. Monday,February 7, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.ROLL CALL
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Collection System Analysis – Review of the City’s Open Trash Hauling System
E.NEW BUSINESS
F.ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item D.1.
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Steve Kummer, Engineer
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Collection System Analysis – Review of the City’s Open Trash Hauling System
DATE: February 2, 2011, for the February 7 City Council Workshop
INTRODUCTION
Collection System Analysis is the term used by the city for the review of the city’s trash hauling
system. Maplewood has an open trash hauling (collection) system which allows any number
of city-licensed haulers to remove trash in any area of the city.
On November 15, 2010, the city council held a workshop to continue the Collection System
Analysis discussion including review of the following: 1) results of the October 4, 2010, special
city council meeting held to discuss the city’s open trash hauling system; 2) options for
proceeding with the Collection System Analysis; and 3) budgeting for continued analysis.
During the workshop the city council requested additional information prior to determining
whether or not to continue with the statutory process for organizing the city’s trash hauling
system. The information requested includes goals and objectives, collection rates, collection
system arrangements, additional studies, and scope of work. This memorandum summarizes
those items and charts out next steps in the process.
BACKGROUND
2009 and 2010: The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission chose the
review of the city’s open trash hauling system as one of their environmental goals. The ENR
Commission recommended approval of a report compiled by the ENR Trash Hauling
Subcommittee which outlined goals for organizing the city’s trash hauling system.
May 2010: The city council held a workshop to discuss the ENR Commission’s
recommendations on organized trash hauling. During the meeting the city council authorized
staff to form a work group consisting of three ENR Commissioners and city staff. The work
group was tasked with preparing a report on the pros and cons of the city’s open trash hauling
system compared with an organized system, and with completing a work plan for proceeding
with the organized trash hauling process.
August 2010: The city council held a workshop to review the work group’s report and work plan.
During the meeting the city council directed staff to set a special meeting for October 4, 2010, to
allow all interested parties to speak to the issue of open versus organized trash hauling
systems.
October 4, 2010: The city council held a special city council meeting to discuss open versus
organized trash hauling systems. The meeting was attended by approximately 150 people, with
41 residents and 5 representatives of trash hauling businesses speaking to the matter.
DISCUSSION
Goals and Objectives
Prior to a city moving forward with a Collection System Analysis, prioritized goals and objectives
should be established. The goals and objectives need to be spelled out clearly in a resolution of
intent to organize. They are an important part of the process to ensure future changes made to
a city’s trash hauling system meet the specified goals and objectives.
On January 13, 2011, the ENR Commission reviewed the goals identified in the MPCA Analysis
of Waste Collection Service Arrangements study (2009), as well as the goals identified in the
May 2009 ENR Trash Hauling Subcommittee report. Based on this information, the ENR
Commission recommends the following goals and objectives for organizing the city’s trash
hauling system:
Economic
Cost savings on road repairs and reconstruction.
o
Lower cost for residents (cost per household per month) due to competitive
o
bidding.
Environmental
To better manage solid waste and recycling.
o
Better able to direct waste to the best environmental destination.
o
Less gas and/or diesel burned.
o
Less CO emitted into the atmosphere.
o
2
Aesthetics/Safety/Service
Less traffic, noise, and dust.
o
Safer streets.
o
More consistent and neater looking streets during collection days.
o
Greater leverage to correct problems with service.
o
Research
Collection Rates
1. The first example (Ex. 1) was taken from the MPCA study (2009) and shows the average
monthly costs associated with open versus organized collection systems.
Average Monthly Service Rates Charged to Residents Ex. 1
Data Taken from the MPCA Study (2009)
Collection System 30 Gallon 60 Gallon 90 Gallon
Organized $14.83 $16.98 $22.23
Open 22.64 25.46 26.50
Difference +7.81 +8.48 +4.27
% Change +53% +50% +19%
2. The second example (Ex. 2) was compiled by staff and reflects current costs for the
various trash and recycling service levels for cities with organized and open collection
systems. The results of Example 2 reflect that cities with organized collection systems
2
can charge varying rates depending on the services provided and how the system is
budgeted. Whereas cities with open collection systems usually have multiple haulers
that charge residents a range in rates for the same basic service.
Average Monthly Rates Charged to Residents in Surrounding Communities Ex. 2
Data Compiled by Staff from Surrounding Communities-January 2011
City (Organized Collection) 30 Gallon 60 Gallon 90 Gallon
White Bear Lake $9.25 $13.60 $18.50
(includes trash and recycling)
Little Canada 18.10 20.98 25.01
(Includes trash, recycling, and bulky items)
(Average Monthly Rates by all Haulers)
City (Open Collection) 30 Gallon 60 Gallon 90 Gallon
City Rates that Include Taxes and Fees
St. Paul (trash only) $20.32 $23.79 $24.94
Roseville (trash only) 15.09 16.77 18.54
Woodbury (trash/recycling) 18.25 16.10 18.59
City Rates that Do Not Include Taxes and Fees
Oakdale (trash/recycling) 12.07 14.33 16.15
3. The third example (Ex. 3) was compiled by Norm Schiferl, Program Analyst with the
Ramsey County Environmental Health Section, and reflects rates charged to residents in
20 cities in the metro area with organized trash hauling. Mr. Schiferl has been compiling
this information for several cities in the county that are interested in organized collection
systems. The data focuses on cities with a population of 4,000 or more that contract
trash hauling and recycling collection services.
Mr. Schiferl states that he has assembled and analyzed a lot of information about solid
waste and recycling over the years, but with this recent review he has a better
understanding of just how complicated collection systems can be. Examples of the
complex nature of organized collection contracts include:
Which residents are served under a contract (just single family or single and multi
family);
Which services are offered to residents (standard 30-60-90 service, or additional
services such as senior rates, etc.)
Which services are subsidized by SCORE funds;
Whether they require waste to be processed per the county solid waste master
plan;
Who does the billing (contractor or city);
Taxes/fees charged (some cities include additional state [9.75%] charges plus
applicable county charges [e.g., 28 percent Ramsey County environmental
charge or 37.5 percent environmental charge in Washington County] while other
cities do not).
3
Comparison of Twin Cities Metro Area Cities with Organized Residential Ex. 3
Refuse and Recycling Collection Contracts
Data Compiled by Norm Schiferl, Program Analyst with Ramsey County-January 2011
Refer to the Spreadsheet Attached (Attachment 1)
4. The fourth example (Ex. 4) was submitted by Rich Svanda, Fridley Environmental
Commissioner, during Fridley’s review of their open trash hauling system in January
2011. The information reflects the inconsistencies in rates between haulers for the same
level of service as well as the inconsistencies between rates charged to residents by the
same hauler for the same level of service.
Analysis of Trash and Yard Waste Collection Costs in Fridley Ex. 4
Data submitted by Rich Svanda, Fridley Environmental Commissioner, for Fridley’s January 2011
Environmental Meeting
Rich Svanda states: Partially as a result of participating in an analysis of organized solid
waste collection in Fridley and not knowing how my costs of solid waste and yard waste
collection services compared to others, I requested information from some of my
neighbors and Environmental Commissioners on their rates. In total I made seven
requests for information and got five responses.
I found that I am being charged more per month than any of the respondents – even
those who use larger trash containers than mine (32 gallon). I also found that I am
paying approximately $20 more per year than one of the respondents who uses the
same trash hauler, with the same size trash and yard waste container.
With this information I contacted my trash hauler and was offered a two-year contract at
a new rate, which would reduce my annual costs by $90 per year. I then contacted
another trash hauler and was offered a larger rate reduction, without a contract duration,
which would reduce my annual costs by $140 per year. Based on this information, I
terminated my trash hauling service with my current hauler, and signed up to start with
the new hauler in February, for a savings of $140 a year.
Collection System Arrangements
Through website research, telephone interviews, and in-person interviews, staff has been
compiling information on assorted collection system arrangements provided by organized
municipalities. Thus far, staff has included 98 cities in the study of collection systems. Included
in the study are cities within the Twin Cities metro area, outstate Minnesota, and western
Wisconsin. Forty-Two (42) of the 98 cities (42%) have an organized collection arrangement.
Twenty-nine (29) of these cities are within the seven-county metro area.
Generally, staff is finding that most cities limit organized collection service to single-family
residential dwellings and multiple-family residential dwellings up to 4 units. Following are
descriptions of different types of trash collection arrangements as well as other services that are
provided. It should be noted that some communities, especially rural cities or townships,
anticipate some customers will regularly self-haul their refuse to a local transfer station, landfill,
recycling center, or compost site where convenient. For the purposes of this study, staff
assumes the most basic and minimum service is curbside collection by a contractor.
4
1.Traditional/Common Refuse Service. Customers have the option of choosing from three
volume levels based on the amount of refuse they generate. These systems generally
offer 30-gallon, 60-gallon or 90-gallon (“30-60-90”) weekly collection at three different
price levels, with 30-gallon service at the lowest price. Customers are provided trash
containers at their preferred volume level. The vast majority of organized municipalities
utilize this model for refuse collection.
2.Modified Traditional Refuse Service. Customers are offered the 30-60-90 volume
options with variations in pick-up frequency or price. The City of Elk River offers bi-
weekly collection at the 30-gallon level. The City of Shakopee offers a “townhome” rate
with the same container sizes as a single-family residence. Customers are offered a few
more options on top of choosing their volume level. As an example, the City of Wayzata
offers a sticker program to pay for additional bags of garbage over a customer’s current
level of service.
3.“By-the-Bag” or “Pay-As-You-Throw” (PAYT). Customers pay per bag of trash. The
bags are typically a prescribed volume and/or weight. Municipalities may sell the bags
though various businesses and outlets or sell stickers that customers affix to their trash
bags for pick up. In order to encourage use of the system, the municipality may charge
a base monthly fee (or “drive-by” fee, as it is called in the City of St. Cloud) for the
service. Only two cities surveyed thus far utilize a PAYT arrangement with one of the
cities providing municipal collection service.
4.Yard Waste Collection. Most organized cities provide curbside yard waste collection.
Curb side service is generally provided from April to November. Customers may
subscribe for weekly collection for a flat fee or pay by the bag. The City of Champlin
uses a “sticker” program, where customers purchase stickers that are affixed to bags for
pickup. In cases of cities that do not provide yard waste collection, these are typically
more rural communities with a local compost site conveniently available for drop off.
5.Christmas Trees. A few organized cities specifically offer Christmas tree pickup. This is
a service that could be included with a request for proposal on contract services.
6.Recycling. All organized cities offer recycling. A number of open-collection cities also
offer single-hauler recycling. For organized cities, the fee for recycling is usually rolled in
with the overall cost of refuse services for each residence. Some cities issue small
recycling bins, similar to Maplewood’s current recycling program. Other cities leave it up
to the contract hauler to issue collection bins or carts. Both single and dual sort
recycling are used. Some cities are finding that a dual sort method is more cost-
effective, since the dual-stream raw recycling materials are higher quality and, thus,
more marketable as a commodity.
7.Bulky Items. These items include appliances, furniture and other large items. This
service is typically included with a hauler contract. However, it is an additional cost to
the customer if they use it. The Cities of Champlin and North St. Paul, for example, offer
rebate programs to defray the cost of disposing appliances. This type of service is
negotiable under a potential hauler contract.
8.
Organics/Food Waste Composting. Curbside collection of organic materials such as
food scraps and food-related paper products is available in the Twin Cities metro. A
5
number of trash haulers offer organics service to ten cities in Hennepin County, including
part of Minneapolis. Three of the ten cities offer the service as part of an organized
collection arrangement. The City of Elk River has also experimented with organics
collection on a pilot project level.
9. Other Services. Based on the research, staff believes that a number of the other
services that trash haulers typically provide to their customers can be provided through a
contract arrangement. Some of these services include door service (for anyone who is
unable to place their trash at the curb), vacation holds (suspend service for a period of
time at no cost), senior pricing and issuance of collection carts. These types of services
could be included with a request for proposal (RFP) for contract services and negotiated
accordingly.
Staff continues to collect information on the variety of collection system arrangements and
services currently in use. A spreadsheet with all of the data available to date is located on the
city’s FTP site. Instructions on how to access this information can be found at the end of this
report.
Administration of Collection System Contracts
During the November 2010 workshop, the city council inquired about the cost of administering a
collection system contract. Administrative costs vary depending on how a contract is structured,
i.e., whether the contractor or the city does the billing, customer complaints, education, etc.
Using the administration of the city’s recycling contract as an example, the city budgets 20
percent of one employee’s time to this administration. This is equivalent to approximately
$18,000 yearly.
Additional Studies
Staff has researched area libraries and several Internet repositories for materials on solid waste.
The challenge associated with studies is not the amount of information, but the age of the
reports that are available. Reports on solid waste collection generally date back to the 1990’s
and earlier. A number of these articles and works have been made available on the city’s FTP
site. Instructions on how to access this information can be found at the end of this report.
In summary, staff found that the MPCA study (2009) is the most up to date study available on
collection systems. However, there is one additional study being conducted by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation’s Local Road Research Board on the impacts of trash hauling
trucks on local roads. This study is expected to be complete summer 2011.
Budget
SCORE Funding
During the November 2010 workshop, staff recommended the city contract with an
environmental consulting firm that specializes in the organized collection process. Staff
proposed a budget of $60,000 for this work, which would be funded from the city’s 2011
Ramsey County SCORE grant. SCORE, which stands for Select Committee on Recycling and
the Environment, is designed to promote programs which enhance or improve waste reduction
and recycling efforts in the county. The city was awarded $77,638 in SCORE grant funding for
2011
6
Ramsey County Technical Assistance
To help cities advance their recycling and related programs, Ramsey County offers technical
assistance through their environmental consulting contract. The City of Maplewood benefited
from this service last year when R.W. Beck, Ramsey County’s environmental consultants,
assisted the city in the recycling RFP process.
During the November 2010 workshop, staff discussed the possibility of using county technical
assistance for our Collection System Analysis. The county’s contract with R.W. Beck is
expiring, and the county is now preparing an RFP for a new environmental consulting contract.
The draft RFP has language which continues to focus on recycling and related issues. Ramsey
County staff will present the RFP to the county board in February. During the presentation,
county staff has indicated they will acknowledge the requests they have received from cities to
include organized trash collection assistance as a potential service, in conjunction with
contracted recycling services. County staff will emphasize, however, that the county
consultant’s role should be as a neutral party, providing a city with assistance on factual
information, not as an advocate for organized trash hauling. A new Ramsey County
environmental consulting contract should be awarded in May 2011.
Over the last few years the City of Maplewood has conducted our own research and analysis of
organized trash hauling. If the county technical assistance RFP is approved as proposed, it is
unlikely that the city could benefit from additional fact finding assistance. As such, the city
should not plan on assistance through Ramsey County’s environmental consulting contract
when budgeting for our Collection System Analysis - unless the county board deemed
organized collection a part of its mission of improving waste reduction and recycling efforts and
amended the RFP.
Scope of Work
Staff has submitted a request for qualifications from environmental consulting firms for
assistance with the city’s Collection System Analysis, with a proposed budget of $60,000.
Based on the qualifications and proposals received, staff has outlined three scope of work
scenarios for review:
1. Scenario One – Consultant
Scope of Work: The city would hire a consultant to complete all requirements of
the statutory process from beginning to end, including initial kick
off meetings, resolution of intent to organize, draft organized
system plan, discussions and negotiations with haulers, findings
and final organized system plan, public relations and advertising,
and project management.
Budget:$60,000
Timing:Six Months to One Year
Advantages: Less time to process. This scenario will ensure expertise in the
field of collection systems.
7
Disadvantages:Cost
2. Scenario Two – Consultant/Staff
Scope of Work: The city would hire a consultant to do a portion of the work. This
could include a menu approach to consultation work, with the
consultant and staff working together. As an example, the city
could hire a consultant to conduct strategic and tactical planning
prior to adopting a resolution of intent to organize or to draft the
organized system plan once a resolution of intent is adopted.
Budget: Variable (less than $60,000)
Timing: One to Two Years
Advantages: Less costly than Scenario One. This scenario would also allow
flexibility in the process and will ensure expertise in the field of
collection systems.
Disadvantages: More time to process. This scenario would take staff away from
other city projects.
3. Scenario Three – Staff
Scope of Work: City staff would continue working on the Collection System
Analysis, with no outside expertise.
Budget:Staff Time Only
Timing:Two or More Years
Advantages: Less costly than Scenarios One and Two.
Disadvantages: More time to process than Scenarios One and Two. This scenario
will take staff away from other city projects. No expertise in the
field of collection systems.
Guest Speakers
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Peder Sandhei, Solid Waste Management Specialist with the MPCA, will be present during the
workshop to discuss highlights of the MPCA Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements
study (2009).
White Bear Lake
Ellen Richter, Assistant City Manager with the City of White Bear Lake, will be present during
the workshop to discuss White Bear Lake’s organized collection contract.
8
Next Steps
During the November 2010 workshop, the city council reviewed three options for moving
forward with the Collection System Analysis as follows: 1) form a task force to continue to study
the issue and report to the city council; 2) establish goals and objectives for organizing the city’s
trash hauling system; and 3) hold a public hearing to adopt a resolution of intent to organize.
During the workshop a majority of the city council indicated they were not interested in forming a
task force which could overlap efforts that have already been undertaken by the city and others.
Since the workshop, the ENR Commission has reviewed and recommended goals and
objectives as outlined above. This leaves the third option as outlined in November 2010 -
adoption of a resolution of intent to organize. In addition to the adoption of a resolution of intent
to organize, staff would like to propose a second alternative, both of which are described below:
1. Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution of Intent to Organize
The first option includes proceeding with a public hearing to pass a resolution of intent to
organize. This would be followed by the statutory process of planning, negotiations, and
findings. At a minimum this process would take 180 days. However, there is nothing in
the statute that dictates a maximum timeframe. The city could extend the 180 day
timeframe if needed.
2. Strategic Planning
As stated above, the establishment and prioritization of goals and objectives for
organizing a city’s trash hauling system is an important first step. Goals and objectives
ensure any future collection system meets clear and established guidelines. The ENR
Commission has recommended goals, but the city council should further refine those
goals and include clear objectives on how to obtain them.
The second option would include a strategic planning process in two phases. The first
phase includes the city council outlining guidelines for the analysis to include preferred
collection systems, service levels, and costs. This process would save the city time and
money by carrying out the strategic planning at the front end, giving staff and consultants
a clear direction on how to chart the implementation process.
Once those guidelines are established, the second phase should include meetings with
the city’s licensed trash haulers, prior to the adoption of a resolution of intent to organize.
Meeting with haulers prior to the adoption of a resolution to organize would show the
city’s good faith effort in communicating clear directives for organizing. It would also
open up an important dialogue between the city and the haulers, without putting the
haulers on the defensive. These meetings would be most productive with an
independent consultant working side by side with the city and the haulers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff recommends the city council consider Next Step Option 2 (Strategic Planning) to
proceed with the Collection System Analysis.
2. Staff recommends the city council consider Scope of Work Option 2 (Staff/Consultant)
when budgeting for the Next Step.
9
3. Staff recommends the city council schedule the Collection System Analysis review for
the February 28, 2011, city council meeting. During the meeting the city council should
authorize a formal Strategic Planning process, Scope of Work budget, and consulting
services.
Attachment:
1. Comparison of Twin Cities Metro Area Cities with Organized Residential Refuse and Recycling
Collection Contracts – Prepared by Norm Schiferl, Program Analyst, Ramsey County
Environmental Health Section
References:
1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements study
(2009)
2. Organized Collection Contracts
3. Additional Studies
References outlined above have been placed on Maplewood’s FTP site. To access the information
follow these instructions:
FTP site: ftp://mwftp.ci.maplewood.mn.us.
Type in the user name: ftpmw.
Type in the password: Maplewood1.
Click on the Collection System Analysis folder to view the documents.
10
Packet Page Number 15 of 15