Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-01 CC Packet Special Meeting e e e ~~ ItGPl1 (~ 93-tp r illwater ~ - - ~l TH:-:-IRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~ -~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FR: Sheila McNamara DA: January 28, 1993 RE: SPECIAL COUNCn. MEETING, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1993 This memo is a reminder to Council that a Special Meeting has been scheduled for Monday afternoon, February 1, 1993 at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss the following: 1. Continued discussion of solid waste issues. 2. Any other business Council may wish to discuss. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 e e e .\ . 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FR: City Coordinator DA: January 7, 1993 RE: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ISSUES The following items need to be addressed at the workshop with Jim Junker: 1. Fees for Bed and Breakfast operations. 2. Fees for multifamily units such as Victoria Villa, Charter Oaks, etc. 3. Fees for businesses operated out of the home. 4. Basis for payment to Junker Sanitation, Inc., for sale of specialized garbage bags (i.e., for extra waste and for reimbursement of cost of bags). 5. Policy on vacant units including changes from multifamily to lesser occupancy (i.e., change from duplex to single family with or without removal of separate kitchen/household facilities). 6. Policy on use of garbage cans (owned by resident) for storage of extra garbage bags to prevent dogs/cats from ripping open bags. 7. Fees for pick-up of city trash (including possible purchase of dumpster by City). 8. Possible requirement of clear plastic bags for detecting contents of extra waste. 9. Clarification of what constitutes extra waste as it relates to "minor" amounts of construction material (and whether or not it should be classified as "regulartl household waste and not "extra waste (such as white goods and large goods). 10. Timing of Payments to Junker Sanitation for Certified Accounts. 11. Copy of list of accounts billed by Junker Sanitation, Inc. 12. Renewal of recycling agreement which expired on December 31, 1992. 13. Establishment of Dispute Resolution Committee. 14. Copy of original sign up forms and container change forms (container size) . ,- .. ITEM #1 - CHARGES FOR BED AND BREAKFAST'S e Discussion This issue was raised by the owner/operator of the bed and breakfast located at 319 West Pine Street. A arently the owner was informed by Jim Junker that the appropriate rate for this bed and breakfast was $19.75 or the rate of a 90 gallon container. The owner co tends that he only needs a 60 gallon container for the waste he generates. Jim ontends that bed and breakfast's generate more "extra" waste (i.e., beds, appl1ances, etc.) than normal households and they should 1 therefore be charged morel. The bed and breakfast operator contends that his bed and breakfast wouldn't gEfnerate any more "extra" waste than a normal household ~~= ~~~~:t~fs~~~~= ;:~~1~~~~ed on the container size he needs to dispose of Recommendation } Council establish a fee p licy for bed and breakfast IS. The fees should be based on relevant data pertaini g to waste generated by bed and breakfasts. (The fees could be based on a per ~edroom (non-family) basis). I The development of "relevant data" could be a difficult task. Therefore, the I Council may also want to consider just letting the bed and breakfast operator decide the container size and base the fee on this. As will be the case for some of the other issues rais d herein, if there is a cost to Junker Sanitation for ~ this then it could be a ded to the total cost of the system and the fees in ~ general should be set at a level to cover the cost. In any event, the fees s based on some justifiable cost. ISSUE #2 - FEES FOR MULT FAMILY UNITS Discussion This issue was raised b the manager of the Charter Oaks housing complex. Apparently the Contractor is charging a fee of $17 per month, per unit (60 units) plus a charge of $120 per month for the dumpsters that are provided (in lieu of individual containers). The agreement states that the fees shall be a minimum of $13.75 per unit for multifamily dwellings unless a different rate is negotiated between the C ntractor and the owner of the multifamily residence. The Contractor believes he fee that has been established for the Charter Oaks facility is appropriate b sed on his judgement of the amount of waste generated. The manager would like t see the data that would support the fee. Although r was concerned uring the development of the new system and agreement about how fees for multif ily units would be addressed, I took some comfort in the "negotiated rate" la guage in the agreement. I think this issue could be resolved if the Contracto would provide the manager with relevant data (average volume per unit, etc.) t support the fee. e 2 e e e .~ Reconunendation Council should direct the Contractor to justify fees (in excess of the mln~ fee) charged to multifamily units. The costs should be based on average volume per unit and the cost of providing dumpsters. ITEM #3 - FEES FOR BUSINESS IN HOMES. Discussion This issue is very similar to the bed and breakfast issue. It was not an issue that was specifically addressed in the negotiations of the new agreement because it was assumed (at least on my part) that the volume base system would lead to an appropriately sized container and fee for all users - whether regular households or owners with businesses. (e.g., if the home business generates waste, the resident would need to have an appropriately sized container to handle the waste or if the business didn't generate waste then the container would only have to be of a size to handle the regular or normal household waste). Reconunendation Council establish a fee policy for home businesses. The fees should be based on relevant data pertaining to waste generated by home businesses. The development of "relevant data" could be a difficult task. Therefore, the Council may also want to consider just letting the home businesses operator decide the container size and base the fee on this. As will be the case for the bed and breakfast issue and for some of the other issues raised herein if there is a cost to Junker Sanitation for this then it could be added to the total cost of the system and the fees in general should be set at a level to cover the cost. In any event, the fees should be based on some justifiable cost. ISSUE #4 - PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR FOR COST AND SALE OF SPECIALIZED BAGS. Discussion This issue was raised when the Contractor submitted an invoice for the cost of 25,000 bags (the amount ordered by the Contractor) and for the sale of 5,000 bags (the amount of bags delivered to the City by the Contractor for sale to the public). The City's understanding (per minutes of the City Council meeting) is that the cost of the bags were to be split 50/50 between the City and the Contractor at the time of purchase. The Contractor contends that the City was to purchase the bags. In regards to the sale of the bags, the contract actually pertains to "stickersll sold, with the Contractor presenting the stickers at the end of each month to the City. Payment would then be made, based on the stickers actually collected by the Contractor. At the request of the contract, the City agreed to substitiute "bags" for "stickersu. City staff believes that monthly payments are a reasonable method of paying the Contractor. Otherwise the City is advancing revenue it has not yet received. Further, the City would have asked 3 ,.. for fewer bags (e.g., have the Contractor deliver X number of bags per month to ~ the City rather than the ~,OOO bags that were delivered). Also, the bags were to have been sequentially numbered for internal control, which they were not. I Recorrunendation Council should establish a policy for reimbursement to the Contractor for the purchase and sale of bags. staff recorrunendation would be to have Contractor pay for the bags and pass t is cost on to the City as part of the systems cost (otherwise the City must pay for the bags out of the General Fund which is tax supported rather than recovering the costs from the user). Staff would also recorrunend continuation o~ the monthly payment for the sale of bags which is the same basis for payment fir the collection service. ISSUE #5 - POLICY ON VAC T AND CHANGED OCCUPANCY Discussion This issue was raised b the owner of a residence that is (to the best of my knowledge) changed from duplex to a single family occupancy. The Contractor believes that this resid nce should continue to be charged the duplex rate even if presently not occupi d because the residence still contains the kitchen facilities (etc) for a s~cond unit. The Contractor further contends that it is very difficult to determ~ne when or if a dwelling unit becomes occupied and that the system can easily be used. I agree to some extent. However, the agreement states that the fees sha 1 be based on occupancy and if a unit is not occupied ~ I think it will be diffi ult to sustain the fee. ~ A related issue is the v cancy caused by "snow birds" or residents who take an extended vacation or vac te the residence for an extended period of time. The present policy is to su pend the monthly fee for any residence that is to be unoccupied for a period f three months or more. The Contractor contends that this is costly to him b cause he is losing the "rent" from the container that he had to supply to the esidence. However, I believe this is just part of the cost of the system and ~he cost (i.e., lost "rentslt) should be recovered from the general fees that ar set. I agree with the Contractor on the "rent" issue. ISSUE #6 - USE Y to address changed/unoccupied dwelling units. Recorrunendation Council establish CANS FOR SPECIALIZED BAGS This issue was raised b a resident who apparently had his specialized garbage bags ripped open by a d or cat. The resident suggests that residents should be allowed to place the ags in their own garbage containers to prevent animals from getting to the bags. I agree with this idea and if there is a cost to the Contractor, it could be part of the cost of the total system and be recovered from the general fees at are set. e 4 e e e \ Recommendation Council should discuss this with Contractor and try to establish a reasonable policy for handling of specialized bags. ISSUE #7 - PICK UP OF CITY TRASH Discussion The agreement requires that the Contractor shall pick up, at no additional charge, city trash. The City presently has a number of Contractor provided dumpsters that it uses to store trash that is accumulated from City offices/facilities and parks. The Contractor charges the City "rent" for the use of the dumpsters (about $4,100 per year) and an additional charge per dump (or emptying of the dumpster) from July 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992 the dump charge total was $2,236.50. Therefore, the City could save about $4,000 - $5,000 per year if the City were to buy the dumpsters. The Contractor contends that he has been charging the City a reasonable rent and that he needs to have some revenue for disposing of City trash. I agree with the Contractor to some extent. However, I believe that the cost of handling city trash should be determined and the cost should be recovered from the general fees that are set (otherwise the City cost must be paid from the General Fund which is tax supported rather than from the user). Recommendation Council should approve City purchase of dumpsters and not be charged per dump. ISSUE #8 - USE OF CLEAR BAGS FOR YARD WASTE Discussion The Contractor has suggested that the City eventually require the use of clear or see-through bags for yard waste. Apparently some residents are mixing regular waste with yard waste which is prohibited by MN Statutes and is not accepted at the RDF, if discovered. I can see that this is a problem for the Contractor. However, I'm not sure how the public would react to this kind of regulation. I don't think cost is a consideration because clear bags are not anymore expensive that the other kind. The problem is that it is just one more thing that the community would have to contend with - and be educated about. Recommendation Council should give this matter careful consideration and try to determine public opinion on this matter before a regulation is established. 5 f ISSUE #9 - CONSTRUCTION fATERIAL!!! Discussion e This issue has been a "extrall waste includes repair/remodeling. The construction material?1I eal pain over the years. The ordinance states that inor amounts of construction material from household problem has always been - IIwhat is a minor amount of We have never adequately quantified "minorll amounts and of course everybody has their own opinion as t what constitutes a "minor" amount. The Contractor contends that constructi n material should be classified as regular waste and be placed in the conta ner he supplies or in the specialized bags if the container is full. I agr e because it is very much like regular household waste and I think it will solv this problem once and for all. Recommendation I I Council should agree tOt; classify require that it be plac d in the specialized bags. ISSUE #10 - PAYMENT FOR ERTIFIED construction material as regular waste and container supplied by the Contractor or in ACCOUNTS Discussion Junker Sanitation bills nd collects all multifamily dwellings (three plex and 4It above). This was a car over provision from the old agreement. However, the new agreement provides t at the City shall certify to the county for collection with the taxes on the pro erty any accounts Junker Sanitation Inc bills that are not paid by a certain dat . The amount certified for Junker Sanitation for 1992 (payable 1993) was $10,3 8.50. The City will collect approximately one-half of this amount in July, 199 and the other one-half in December, 1993. Actually, the City will not collec 100 percent because 3% - 4% of the properties remain delinquent through nonp yment of taxes. However, the City over time should collect 100 percent of t e charges even if the property becomes tax forfeiture. The question or issue h~re is one of timing. In other words, should we pay 1 Junker Sanitation when t:e accounts are given to the City for certification or should we pay as we rec ive the money which could be spread over one - seven years. Recommendation Council establish a po~icy for payment of accounts certified for Junker Sanitation Inc. I e 6 '. e ISSUE #11 - LISTING OF ACCOUNTS BILLED Discussion The City has previously requested a listing of accounts (as per the contract) including the fees being billed for each account. To date, the City has not received this information. Recommendation The Contractor should forward a listing of accounts and amounts billed to the City. ISSUE #12 - RECYCLING AGREEMENT The recycling agreement expired on June 30, 1992 and I have previously submitted a draft of a new agreement to the Contractor that is similar to the old agreement (only the rates and duration would change). The Contractor and City extended the original agreement with an addendum. However, the Contractor and Council have yet to discuss the new agreement and the Contractor has continued to provide recycling service at the terms and conditions of the old agreement based on the addendum. e The Solid Waste Advisory Committee has reviewed the draft agreement and finds it acceptable except for the rates and duration of contract which were not known by the Committee. Recommendation Council meet with Contractor to determine terms and conditions of a new recycling agreement. ISSUE #13 - DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE Section 14 of the Agreement between the City and Junker Sanitation provide for the establishment of a Dispute Resolution Committee ("DRC"). The "DRC" would consist of three members; one appointed by the City, one appointed by the Contractor and the other member would be appointed by the first two appointees. The "DRC" would be used to resolve any controversial disputes between the Contractor and a resident. The Council would arbitrate a dispute that is not resolved by the "DRC". At this time, we have two matters effecting residents that are in dispute. They are Item #1 - Fees for Bed and Breakfast and Item #2 - Fees for Multifamily Units (the other issues are interpretations of the agreement or disagreements regarding the intent of the City or Contractor on nonspecific issues such as purchase of bags). I would assume that these matters would normally be reviewed by the "DRC" if I was not able to resolve them with the Contractor. However, I think we need to establish a clear policy regarding these issues before a "DRC" could effectively deal with the issues. In other words, we need e to establish a policy in order for the "DRC" to determine whether the agreement 7 is being fairly administered and complied with. Recormnendation Defer appointing "DRC" u til the Council and Contractor can agree to a policy on the aforementioned is ues. ISSUE #14 - ORIGINAL FO SIGN-UP AND CHANGES OF SERVICE Discussion Although this item was n t addressed in the contract, it was assumed that the City would receive the y llow copy of the three-part form signed by customers originally or when chang ng containers. For accounting purposes, the City has absolutely no documentation of fees we are charging to customers. Recormnendation City Council should requ re that the yellow copy be forwarded to the City for internal control purpose . 8 ,'~ e e e e e e ~i 1 ~~te~ THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~ January 27, 1993 Mr. Bob Fritts 1575 North Second Street Stillwater, MN 50582 Dear Bob: On behalf of the Stillwater City Council, I would like to thank you for volunteering to serve on the Dispute Resolution Committee (IIDRCII) that was established pursuant to Section 14 of the Agreement between the City of Stillwater and Junker Sanitation, Inc. I know that your decisions will be fair to both parties. As stated in Section 14, the purpose of the IIDRCII is to try to resolve disputes between the contractor and a resident. At this time, the City has identified two issues that are in dispute: 1. The fees that Junker Sanitation, Inc. i~ charging bed and breakfast operations; and 2. The fees that Junker Sanitation, Inc. is charging Charter Oaks - a multi-family development on Curve Crest Blvd. These two issues are explained more fully in an enclosed memorandum the City Coordinator gave to the City Council (dated January 7, 1993) for discussion at a workshop with Jim Junker that was held on January 12, 1993. The memorandum also includes a number of issues (i.e., issues 3 through 14) that will be discussed at a workshop that is scheduled for 4: 30 p.m., Monday, February 1, 1993 at City Hall. Although the IIDRCII is being asked to resolve only issues #1 and #2 at this time, it may be helpful to you and to all concerned for you to attend the workshop. I have also enclosed some information you may find helpful. Thank you again for your participation and please feel free to contact me at 439- 6121 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Chd/~ 7?'-;z/~ Charles M. Hooley Nayor CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 e e e ~i 1 ~~te~ THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA i) January 27, 1993 Mr. Bill Herzog 405 Laurie Lane Stillwater, MN 50582 Dear Bill: It is my understanding that you have been appointed by Jim Junker to represent Junker Sanitation, Inc., on the Dispute Resolution Committee ("DRC") that is being established to resolve disputes between Junker Sanitation, Inc. and residents. First of all, on behalf of the city Council I would like to thank you for your willingness to participate. I know that your decisions will be fair to both parties. Second, I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I sent to Bob Fritts, the City's DRC representative as well as some information that should be useful. As I pointed out in my letter to Mr. Fritts, I thifik it would be very helpful if you were to also attend the workshop on solid waste issues that is to be held at 4: 30 p.m., Monday, February 1, 1993 at City Hall. Please feel free to contact me at 439-6121 if you have any questions. Sincerely, (}/z&d-7%71~ Charles M. Hooley Mayor CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121