Memo Refuse/Sanitation Optionsx
w
CITY OF HOPKINS
EUN0"' Ad X6100
DATE: September 27, 1991
TO: All Council Members
Steve Mielke, City Manager
FROM: Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: - Refuse /Sanitation Options
Legislation changes over the last few years are forcing everyone to
significantly change their refuse collection procedures. The new
requirements have already forced everyone to collect yard waste and
brush separately from household refuse. New legislation will
furthermore be requiring everyone to offer either volume or weight
based collection, services by January 1, 1993. It is obvious that no
one can argue that these changes are necessary, however, the changes
significantly impact budgets, available labor, and operations of a
refuse collection company such as Hopkins. For this reason staff felt
that Council should review our present refuse program to determine how
refuse should be collected in the future.
This memo will basically outline the current refuse /sanitation related
services provided by the city. It will also list staff concerns of
the present programs as well as possible future concerns.
Alternatives will then be listed addressing these concerns followed by
a staff recommendation.
Services to be outlined are as follows:
o Automated Refuse Collection (City Service Area)
o Yard Waste Pick -up
o Spring and Fall Leaf Pick -up
o Brush Pick -up
o Extra Bulk Item Pick -up
The criteria staff used in evaluating these services were to provide
.the same quality service that the residents expect from the city.
Also, that we look at reducing the burden on labor and the potential
need for future hiring, and address the fixed income people by
incorporating more of a user fee - pay what you actually need
approach. Lastly, that in all situations we try to provide free.
alternatives if possible.
I
September 27, 1991 Memo
Page 2
Service: Automated Refuse Collection
Budget Fund: Refuse Utility (monthly charge)
Fund: 717 -48930
Cost: Approximately $450,000 /year
Background:
Since July 1986 the City has operated an automated refuse collection
system in the single family, duplex and triplex areas (city service
area) . 90 gallon roll -out containers are collected by one man
operated automated collection trucks. Routes are collected on a
weekly basis Monday through Wednesday (this collection includes
collection of refuse at all city owned buildings) . Additionally, a
special 300 gallon container system is collected by our automated
collection system on Tuesdays and Fridays, on a call -in request basis
for a charge of $25:00 per dump. This allows us to collect additional
refuse from residents that are moving or doing house cleaning. Fully
automated or semi - automated are the only realistic City operated
systems.
Concerns:
o Legislation now requires that by January 1, 1993 all refuse
haulers offer a volume or weight based fee structure. Since the
weight based systems have not been perfected yet, the city would
more that likely be forced to go with a volume based system.
o New containers would have to be purchased to comply with a volume
based structure.
o New utility billing structures would have to be implemented for a
volume based system.
o Since legislating has mandated that yard waste and brush be
collected separately from household refuse, it is difficult with
and automated system to know if these items are in the can until
it is already emptied.
o Both of our automated trucks need to - be replaced.
o The current refuse programs have already put a strain on our
labor force.' Certain maintenance activities are continually
postponed due to this labor burden, and may get worse due the the
increase in yard waste and brush collected.
o We currently haul to Reuter which saves us time, fuel, and
disposal fees. If Reuter no longer accepts our refuse we will be
forced to follow County designation requiring longer trip time,
more fuel and a $5 per ton increase in, tip fee. If this does
happen the city will be forced to go to a five day a week pick up
program which would significantly compound our current labor
shortage problem.
September 27 , 1991 Memo
Page 3 .
Alternatives
1. Continue City operation of the refuse system with fully automated
equipment. Purchase new trucks and containers in accordance with
volume based requirements. Plan to raise refuse rates and add
possibly two personnel, if Reuter no longer accepts our refuse.
2. Investigate contracting the service. Several haulers could assume
the service using some of our present containers and utilizing
semi - automated equipment. They would be required to provide
volume based rates. We would ask for separate bids for the
service requiring them to provide weight tickets. We would pay
for the disposal directly and would pay them a collection /hauling
fee.
Recommendation:
Investigate contracting the service for review during the 1993 budget
preparation as described in alternative #2 -. Obtain costs for the
contracting of regular refuse, recycling and yard waste collection to
determine what would be more cost effective. Hold off'on purchase of
new trucks until 1993.
Continue funding as a Refuse Utility charge if in -house or contracted.
Consideration could be made to add a low volume rate for senior
citizens and low volume users with the use of a bag /tag system similar
to Wayzata. The refuse rate would have to be adjusted to cover-added
costs
Service: Yard Waste Pick -up
Budget Fund: Refuse Utility
Fund: 717 -48930
Cost: Approximately $40,000 /year (approx. $30,000 funded by Hennepin
County)
Background:
On January 1, 1991 legislation passed requiring that yard waste and
brush be collected separately from regular household refuse. The cost
of providing yard waste collection is in part funded by the 6% tax
imposed on refuse fees and passed back to us in a County rebate of
approximately $30,000. Due to this legislation our yard waste
collection stops have increased requiring more man hours towards this
effort. In 1989 we were collecting from approximately 80 stops per
week in our service .area, in 1991 it will be close to 330 stops per
week. We collected approximately 500 tons of yard waste through' this
program in 1989 and 1990.
September 27, 1991 Memo
Page 4
Concerns:
o More man power is needed to. continue with this program and keep
up with our maintenance needs in other areas.
o Rising costs of landspreading and composting.
o Lack of a user fee structure does not discourage residents to
leave clippings on the lawn, and does not encourage backyard
composting. It furthermore encourages lawn bags to be brought
into Hopkins since it is free.
o Costs are passed on to everyone not just users
Alternatives:
1. Contract out with refuse collection contract
2. Continue yard waste collection as we are now, on a weekly basis
following refuse routes. Hire additional manpower if needed.
3. Offer the collection as an additional refuse service using a user
fee sticker system for each bag regardless if we contract it out
or not.
Recommendation:
Legislation mandates that the service must be continued for landfill
abatement. We prefer the user fee option to allow more efficiency and.
again move toward a volume based user fee structure. However, keep
cost in line with the fact that Hennepin County is funding part of our
costs at this time. A user fee could also be supplemented by a free
Saturday drop off during certain times of the year.
Service: Fall Leaf Pick -up
Budget Fund: P.W. Street Cleaning
Fund: 101 -42240
Cost: Approximately $20,000 /year
Background:
The City has provided leaf pick -up for over 25 years as a General Fund
Public Works street cleaning function. This service collects
approximately 200 to 300 tons of leaves per year. Leaves are
collected with a rear load refuse truck in bags throughout the City
service area. In the Belgrove and Interlachen - areas leaves are also
collected from the streets with the loader and dump trucks. This
method reduces collection costs as over half the leaves in the City
are generated in these two areas.
September 27, 1991 Memo
Page 5
Concerns:
o Difficult to set a fee and require hauler to implement -
Interlachen and Belgrove area residents would not appreciate
having to bag leaves for collection.
Alternatives:
1. Discontinue service. Require contracted hauler to implement
similar program
2. Continue service as currently provided by city forces.
3. Continue service but add cost to Storm Sewer Utility as an
additional charge of -.$50 cents per month. Prorate a different
charge to Belgrove and Interlachen due to collection type.
Recommendation:
Continue service as outlined in alternate #3 above. This can be
justified by the elimination of leaves from the storm sewers and can
be explained as an extra service people are receiving.
Service: Extra Bulk Item Pick -up
Budget Fund: Refuse
Fund: 717- 48910
Cost: Approximately $55,000 /year - (funded in part by a user fee -
$15.00 per bulk item or 3/4 cu yd)
Background:
This service was initiated in 1991 to replace the previous free
quarterly bulk item collection program. It is done Thursdays on a
call -in basis and 'there is a fee of $15.00 per bulk item or 3/4 cu
yard. Costs are billed to the utility bill. There is also a free
bulk drop off during the spring and fall of each year. (May Bulk Drop
off Costs .
The Bulk pick -up is structured to be more restrictive as to what is
collected, and is an attempt to move toward a user fee system.' The
present user fee program appears to be saving the city close to 1.000
labor hours in comparison to the old free quarterly pick up program.
Also, less items are being disposed of in this program, indicating
that non- Hopkins residents may have been routinely bringing items to
their Hopkins friends for free disposal during prior years quarterly
program.
September 27, 1991 Memo
Page 6
Concerns:
o Billing is a problem as the city has no ordinance that requires
the property owner to accept charges made by a tenant (see
attached Keefe letter and Pat Weigel memo)
Alternatives:
1. Require contracted hauler to implement
2. Go back to quarterly pick up system - city crew or contracted
3. Offer only Spring and Fall drop off.
4. Continue program as is and change ordinance to make property
owner responsible so issue can be certified to tax.
Recommendation:
Continue the present bulk item pick -up program. This years program
has proven that it As far better than the prior program of free
quarterly bulk pick ups. The system is more volume based and user
financed.
A free drop off spring and fall could still be offered in May and
October that would give residents, including apartment dwellers an
additional free outlet. This would be appropriately funded by refuse
utility funds.
Service: Brush Pick -up
Budget Fund: General - P.W. Tree Service
Fund: 101 -42260
Cost: Approximately $32,000 /year
Background:
The City has provided brush pick -up for over 25 years as a General
Fund Public Works tree service or sanitation function. This service
collects approximately 5000 cubic yards of brush. The brush is
collected on a call -in basis throughout the year. Currently we are
averaging 150 stops per week during May and October and . 60 to 70
during the rest of the year with very little collected in January and
February (depending on the snowfall). The brush is chipped or burned
at our gravel pit.
This program has been effective in keeping the trees and yards in a
neat condition. However, Hopkins is one of the very few cities to
offer this service at' all and due to, the legislation that requires
separate collection our stops are increasing. Stops used to average
approximately 90 per week during the peak months and now average 150
per week. Most cities require brush to be picked up by their refuse
haulers. A few provide the service at a small charge.
!
September 27 1991,Memo
Page 7
Concerns
o More man power is needed to continue with this program and keep
up with our maintenance needs in other areas.
o We may have difficulty in the future burning brush if
restrictions are tightened by the PCA. This will require more
manpower to chip all small brush or more manhours, and fuel, and
also disposal costs will increase if we must haul to Hennepin
County site.
o Many people set out very small piles making it ridiculous for us
to even stop.
0 our program encourages brush from outside our city limits to be
brought in for free pick up.
Alternatives:
1. Require Contract - hauler to implement.
2. Discontinue service require residents to haul or have picked up
through private sources.
3. Continue service as currently provided funded by general tax
funds hire additional manpower if needed.
4. Continue service but charge a service fee of $10 dollars per
pick -up. This could generate up to $10,000 dollars per year. to
help defer added personnel costs. It would also encourage
residents to combine their piles thereby creating less stops for
Public works and making each stop more cost effective. It would
also significantly reduce the amount of. brush being currently
hauled in to Hopkins for free pick up.
Recommendation:
Continue service as currently provided but move to a user fee program
as outlined in alternate #4 above. Also, a free Saturday drop off
could be established in conjunction with a free yard waste drop off.
C I T Y O F H 0 P K.I N S
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Lee Gustafson
From: Pat Weigel, Utility Billing
Re: Bulk /300 Refuse Pickup Billing
We have been experiencing problems with the billings on Bulk and 300
gallon refuse pickup.
We have had instances on rental property where the rentor has called
in for extra services, the charges are then applied to the account,
and then the owner receives the billing. The owners do not feel that
they should have to collect monies from their rentors for services
that they did not authorize. In some cases the rentor has moved out
and the owner has already refunded the rentors security deposit.
On 300 gallon pickup, residents call in and say they did not request
to have the container emptied on a certain day, but we have.it listed
on our pickup list and they have been charged for the pickup.
Kathy Max and I discussed the problems, and we thought that having
stickers that the residents could pre - purchase for the items to be
.picked up would be a better system. They could buy the number of
stickers they needed at City Hall and then call Public Works to
request pi ckup.
This way we would be receiving funds up front, instead of waiting to
bill on the quarterly statements. The stickers would eliminate the
problem with rentor /owner billings, and they could also be used if
you decide to start charging for leaf or brush pickup.
I also discussed this idea with John Schedler, and he felt that this
would be a better way to handle the collection for these services.
He stated that there may be times when we won't be sure.of how many
stickers to sel (eg. misc. items charged by the yard) but we could
either contact Vern or someone within his department in order to
receive an answer.
Please review and let me know if t h i s sounds l i k e a feasible `solution .
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Pat W. n
r
v�Ey
V�)
August 7, 1991
PHONE (612) 474 -3828
FAX (612) 474 -0922
Water Billing Department
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street, So.
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: Enclosed copy of bill regarding the
above - captioned; matter at 1202 -1204 Oxford St.
Gentlemen:
I note that you have included $105.00 for a bulk pickup that
was ordered by the rentor at 1202 oxford Street. We had no
knowledge of this nor do we approve of it, and since it is
not within the purview of the regular bills, and is a special
order, we will not be responsible for this bulk pickup and
will resist any attempt on your part either to foster this
obligation upon us. You may rest assured we will take whatever
the appropriate steps are to insure our rights and not have
the City of Hopkins unilaterally charge landlords for
obligations that rightfully belong to the tenant. Either,
remove this charge from our bill or we will see you in the
appropriate form.
Very truly yours,
4 in B. Keefe