Loading...
Agenda . AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:30 p.m. Raspberry Room 6:30 pm City Council Work Session Called to Order 6:35 pm Review of recycling program; Cleve . 7:00 pm Policy discussion on multiple assessments; Stadler 8:00 pm Dispatch consolidation study discussion; Reid 9:00 pm Other 9:30 pm Adjourn . .. . I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT I Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members COPY: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager -- ) ! FROM: Penny Cleve, Recycling Coordinator ' ' Steve Stadler, Public Works Director ~ DATE: February 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Single-Stream Recycling & Refuse Update In November 2002 the City switched from weekly curbside two-sort recycling in an 18-gallon open bin to bi- weekly curbside single-stream recycling in a wheeled cart with a lid. The change was made with several goals in mind: . Simplify recycling for residents . Increase recycling participation . Increase amount of recycling collected . Improve appearance of alleys . Decrease truck traffic in neighborhoods . Decrease amount of refuse collected A survey was sent to refuse/recycling customers in March 2003 to get a feel for how the new program was being received and to identify any problems or concerns that our customers were experiencing. Overall, eesidents viewed the program as satisfactory to excellent and identified three main areas of concern. (See attachments 1 & 2.) The 2003 year-end figures for refuse and recycling are now available and the 2003 Municipal Recycling Final Report has been completed. A comparison has been done between year-end 2002 and year-end 2003 refuse/recycling figures. The results show that the Curbside Single-Stream Recycling Program is meeting our goals. (See attachment 3 & 4.) . Recycling participation increased 8.47%. . Curbside-recycling collection increased 16%. . Liz Page, Housing Inspector, reports a significant improvement in alley cleanliness and appearance. . The percentage of solid waste being recycled increased from 34.2% to 41.2%, a 7% increase. . Curbside refuse collection decreased 20%. . Refuse costs decreased by a net amount of$20,492.00. In addition to these results, curbside single-stream recycling has proven to be customer friendly. Out of the 76,971 annual collection stops in Hopkins there were only] 00 calls reporting missed collections in 2003. 4% of our residents have requested and received larger recycling carts, and 1 % have requested and received smaller recycling carts. OUf contractor, Waste Management, has responded to the missed collections, cart exchanges and cart repairs promptly and has worked with us on a case-by-case basis to make recycling collection convenient for all our residents (i.e. changing pick up locations, adding additional carts, etc.). etaffwill be including a 2003 Recycling Report in an upcoming utility bill mailing to residents. Staff is going to contact the Sun Sailor about an article regarding the success of our Single-Stream Recycling program. Attachments ... . ~ CITY OF HOPKINS s_ Stre. Recycle Slrvey Totals Total Responses EXCrLLENT SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY Overall Program: 882 62% 35% 3% Cart: Size & Handling: 882 52% 41% 7% No-Sort Recycling: 887 81% 18% 1% Bi-Weekly Collection: 868 42% 44% 14% Collection Reliability: 881 64% 34% 2% Carts Set at Curb or Alley: 871 56% 43% 3% . Curb/Alley Cleanliness: 863 62% 43% 6% Off Week Cart Storage: 818 36% 56% 8% Recycling Truck Traffic/Noise: 866 37% 62% 1% Customer Service: 781 61% 48% 2% Education/Communication: 759 47% 49% 4% Volume Recycled: Total Responses: 763 More: 44% Same: 56% Less: 2% Attachment 1 . 2/20/2004 ... CJ-fopkins Public Works Department 11100 8xcelsior CJ3lvd. . %pkins, 0V[N 55343-3435 - Phone: 612-939-1382 -:Fax: 612-939-1381 May 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Sinale Stream Recvcling Survey Dear Hopkins Resident: Two months ago, 2,989 residents received a Single Stream Recycling Survey along with their monthly utility bill. Over 950 residents returned the survey; that is a 33% return ratel On the other side of this letter is a break down of the survey responses. Overall, residents viewed the program as excellent. The purpose of the survey was to identify and assess problems or concerns residents may have experienced with the Single Stream Recycling process. The main areas of concern were identified as: Cart Size Bi Weekly Collection Off Week Cart Storage In reviewing the comments it was found that many of the Bi Weekly Collection and Cart Size issues were directly related. The concern that collection should be weekly because the recycling cart would not hold two weeks of recyclable material can be resolved by requesting a larger 95-gallon recycling cart. Conversely, if the 64-gallon cart is too large for your needs a 32-gallon cart is available. To request a change in the size of your recycling cart please call 952-939-1382 . The other concern with Bi Weeklv Collection was the difficulty in remembering which weeks were recycling weeks; we've addressed that issue by producing a calendar that has the recycling weeks highlighted in gold. These calendars are currently in the mail to Hopkins recycling customers. The calendars have a magnetic strip on the back so they can be placed on the refrigerator for easy access. The third issue, Off Week Cart Storage, is not as easily solved. Hopkins Legislative Policy 8~D, 4.01, 5, states, "The container may remain at the pick up location only on the pick up day or until it is collected if normal pick up is delayed. Containers can remain out at the pick up site continuously only by approval of the Public Works Department.~ Ideally refuse and recycling carts should be stored in a garage. However, when garage space does not permit, it is suggested that the carts be placed outside next to the garage or house where they do not create an eyesore. If your cart cannot be stored as directed by policy, please call the Recycling Coordinator (952-939-1382) to discuss altemative storage solutions. The City would like to thank the residents for their overwhelming support of the Single Stream Recycling Program. The volume of recycling collected has increased13% and the volume of refuse collected has decreased 10%. A copy of all the comments received from the survey is available upon request Sin~rely, " ) , . I . rt ".~~L /",-,,-.; \. t.~ ." Penny Cleve " " . Recycfing ~.bordinator 952-939-1382 A7rftC--HMGIV' 2- ufll Equal Opportlllli~y 8mployer '" , -4 I -4 ..... N N (.oJ (.oJ . 0 01 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l:: ., C" CIl c: Ol ::u -4 Ol 0 (') 0 '< ..... g :::I !C -i 0 -4 :::::l .Jlo. CIl 0 :.:.. .Jlo. :;:0 m "T1 C en m )> I\)jlIo :::::: g:;:o . I\)m I 0 1\)-< Ol 00 3- (.oJ oj" w N (,,)- co Z 0 G') () 0 ~ l:: (.oJ a- 0 CIl Z c: N en Ol m ::u N Ol (.oJ 2' ..... CIl co Ol 0 I ::I m CIl 01 m N 01 I j o GiI 0 -NN :::J 0 0 Q 0 0 Ol (.oJ N III CIl Ol -- 0 . (1) (') .., (1) al CIl ('D . ~ --- iifi iifi {n . {n iifi iifi ~ iifi ..... ..... ..... .j:I. I\) I\) .j:I. (l) 0 I\) .j:I.. 0 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 '6 '6 '6 0 0 0 '6 0 0 0 0 {n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .......- ...... -E:B CO 0 :::0 m~ CD (l) .Q "-J 0 ..... CO ::l CO CO 0 0 ~ iifi ..... I\) .-.1 :::0 <C 1;~:L,"~;fl:~'-:;,::. ',":~:}\:;/::;~~;G~~~~~r:'.<'.';., . I\) CD 0 ... - --- c "' "QCI (h l/I ".' <C J\) -.I 0 0 a w 0 ..... - ;;tJ ...... Om 0"'11 enc: -tenN }> orno - OQOO - . z S:;;tJ~ "'UrnN CD >08 - ('I) (f) ;a. II) ::o-<w .j:I. :5. -0 ::l iifi enr co I\) 0- l/I 0 zZ ).. G') lO J\) DDIilD 201\)1\) ('1)000 -l/IOO (f):: w I\) 11)::100 < 000 S' Cil ~ ~ (ClI)l/I(II l/I l/I ('I) -- 0 ('I) . 0 Cil II) (II ('I) . We looked at the feasibility of implementing each option as well as equity issues related to each method. Option 1 Maximum total dollar amount assessed to a residential property for Street Improvements. This option would place a dollar amount cap to be assessed to a single property within a set period of years. This option would not provide for equity issues to be addressed because a 40- foot lot would have the same cap dollar amount as a 1 50-foot lot. This option would require a moderate amount of data analysis to insure the cap amount is not exceeded. The implementation of this option would most likely complicate assessment hearings because properties would potentially be assessed at varying rates and may be difficult to explain to residents why one property is being assessed at a lower rate than another. This option would be complicated if some type of property redivision has occurred and portion of the current ownership has been assessed differently than the balance of the lot. Option 2 Maximum per foot frontage rate assessed to a residential property for Street Improvements. This option would place a maximum rate per front foot, which a property can be assessed, in a given period. This option would better address the equity issue in that it would be based on frontage and the cap amount would then vary. Implementation of this option would be . extremely difficult due to the fact not all previous assessments have been based on frontage. The data analysis related to implementing this option would be very complicated to insure the cap is not exceeded. This option would be complicated if some type of property redivision has occurred and pOliion of the current ownership has been assessed differently than the balance of the lot. Option 3 Maximum total number of special assessments to a residential property within a given period for Street Improvements. This option would limit the number of special assessments to a residential property to a set number within a given time period. This option would address equity from large lots to small lots because previous assessments were levied based on frontage or with an appropriate equity relative to that assessment. The data analysis related to implementing this option would be much less involved than the other options. This is a very straightforward policy to explain to property owners. This policy could be complicated by property redivisions that involve combinations of parcels, which have a different number of previous assessments. . . Discussion Based on our analysis we reconmlend option 3 for a method to limit exposure to special assessments for Street Improvements on residential properties. If Option 3 were to be pursued, two variables would need to be defined. The first is what is the maximum number of special assessments allowed per parcel? The second is within what time frame does this limit apply, Under the City's current assessment policy a property could conceivably be assessed for 4 street improvements (front Avenue, rear alley, Street to the south and Street to the n011h). Typically special assessments for street improvements are financed over a 10-year period, although some terms have been up to 20 years. Typically an assessment is certified to Hennepin County in November of the year the improvement is made and then payable over the next ten years. For example the 2003 street improvement project was constructed in 2003. The assessment was certified to Helmepin County in November of 2003. The assessment shows up on the first property tax statement in May of2004 and last appears on the October 2013 tax statement. For purposes of discussion we are suggesting the limit on number of assessments be set to no more than two. One of the goals of this proposed policy is to reduce the financial burden on property owners by not having multiple assessment payments on a single tax statement. With this in mind and for purposes of discussions we have assumed the period in which no parcel may exceed two assessments to be ten years beginning the first year the assessment appears on the tax statement. With these two variables as a basis we have mapped out the properties assessed since 1991 and based on the current capital improvement plan (eIP) may be assessed in the future. Projecting . areas of future assessments are very preliminary at this point and have been mapped for purposes of discussion. There are special circumstances, which will need to be worked out with these projects as they come forward so please keep in mind the very preliminary nature related to these areas of potential future assessments. On this map we have also shown the overlap of assessments where properties are currently assessed for more than one project. In addition to the map we are providing a spreadsheet showing data on residential street & alley projects since 1991. This policy is intended in part to help guide city staff on development of the CIP and really applies to those projects which are initiated by the city rather than projects petitioned by residents. It is our intent that this cap would only apply to non-petitioned projects. Impacts Exact dollar amounts have not been calculated showing the impacts of this policy but based on the percentage of properties that appear to be affect we do not anticipate implementation of this policy to have a major financial impact on the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Based on the information available we project no new areas with more than 1'.\'0 assessments through 2012. Recommendations If it is the council's desire to implement some measure of protection from multiple special assessments to residential properties for street improvements we recommend considering option 3 . as described above. This option would cap the number of special assessments within a ten-year period to no more than two non-petitioned projects.