CR 90-165 Adoption Ordinance 90-685
__ -if/l'Wlfl___ ..-..:__-- - -.
-l-JII ~_
"'WI ___1___ ........'"'7..
L_ ~
1 y
o
July 31, 1990
P K \ ~
Council Rpt 90-165
.
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-685
AMENDING G~~BAGEf RL~BISH AND LITTER ORDINANCE
P:COI?osed ,bctlQ11
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: nM~
~~first reading ~dinance no. 90-JlaS amend~~section 605 of the
H.oDkips c;i ty Cod~ ~. fI
This action will update the title, definitions and add a mandatory
recycling section into the ordinance~ portions will be deleted which
are no longer relevant and wording altered to more clearly state
purpose.
ove,t'vl~
.
section 605 of the Hopkins' City Code was established to regulate
solid waste disposal in the city. A title change to "Solid Waste
Management:." will more accurately describe. this ordinance and the
update of definitions and language will more clearly state the
purpose. Also recent changes in legislation have neoessitated changes
in our methods ot managing solid waste, partioularly in the area of
recycling. In order to meet abatement qoals set at state and county
levels it bas beco1ne apparant that mandatory recycling language needs
to be added to our current solid waste ordinance.
Prim~ry Issue~ ~~ Cops~de~
o Should the title be changed?
o Should the definitions and language be updated?
o Should the changes effecting mandatory recycling be initiated?
~..QtlJJ1g<..hito:rmaj:icm
o Detailed Backqround
o Analysis of Issues
o 1/10/90 CQuncil Workshop minutes
o Ordinance No~ 90-685
o Existin9 city Code S~c~i~n 605 - Garbage, RUbbish, and Litter
~{xfhu (2; m()fK
- Katiiy-':~, Recyc1ln9~ coordTnator
.
.
~,
.. '
",
..','
-.;;'
.:\
.,.-'.
Council Rpt 90-165
July 31, 1990
Page 2
l
I
Detai~d Backgrou~g
The following are the section areas in the proposed ordinance whi.ch
would modify and update the existing ordinance along with an
explanation of the proposed changes.
SECTIO~ AR~
605. Title
~ANGES .l1?J:1E
changed from ~'Garbaget RUbbish, and
Litter" to nSoli.d Waste Management" to
reflect a comprehensive solid waste
ordinance.
605.01 DefinitiQne
Subd. 4$
lfResidential" was removed to make
definition regulate all waste receptacles.
SuM. 11.
Added to define and clarify the term
"Dwelling Unit".
Subd. 11.- 15.
Subdivision numbers changed to Subd. 12.-
16. to reflect addition of terms in
alphabetical order.
Added to define and clarify the term
"Institutional Building" which is used in
altered portions of the ordinance.
Subdivision numbers chanqea to Subd. 18.-
32. to reflect addition of terms in
alphabetical order.
Added to define and clarity the term >>Tr~~
~laste" .
Subd.. 17.
subd. 16.- 30.
Subd.. 33.
SuM.
Added to define and clarify the term
"unacceptable Wasteu.
"'.<1
.,......
Subdivision numbers changed to Subd. 35.-
36. to refleot addition of terms in
alphabetical order.
605.02 w.~ M1UU9J,.PJlJ." Soli~llS~~__Co~lectiQn M~ Oisposal seruces.
Subd.. 31.- 32..
Subel. 2..
Title of this section was changed to more
accurately defin0 content.
Wording was modified in new Subd. 2. to
cover all properties and all types of non-
recyclable materials.
'Subd.. 2. a)
',':.'.'.-'
-
.
.
'I.'.:
~:'~,;'~' .
~.:,
':,.:".,,",,-
~{~.
'':i';"..
,,-',,'.
Wt:;~l,
~S.".
!i::,"'.'
council Rpt 90-165
July 31, 1990
Page 3
Subd . 2. b)
Subd. 2. b) was deleted and covered under
new Subd. 3.
Subd.. 2. c)
Subd. 2. c) was moved to new Subd. 3. c)
and new Subd. 3. d).
Subd. 3. a)
This section was added to make it the duty
of residential owners and occupants to
recycle~
Subd.. 3.. b)
This secti.on was added to make it the duty
of multiple-family dwellings, commercial
and institutional building owners and
occupants to recycle.
This section was moved from Subd. 2. 0).
The first sentence was changed to reflect
the city service area mandatory
requirement of separating yard waste from
mixed municipal solid waste for
collection. The last sentence was changed
to be more general in nature.
Subd. 3. c)
Subd. 3. d)
This section was moved from Subd. 2. c} to
clarify the brush and tree waste
separation requirement.
605.05 penaltie~
Subd.. :1..
Chanqed due to the addition of Subd. 2.
Subd. 2.
Added to impose an enforceable penalty for
not recycling..
Erimarv Issues ~~
o
Should the title be <::.:hanged?
Staff recommends the title be changed to more clearly describe
the purpose of the ordinance and to reflect a comprehensive solid
wa~te management ordinance.
Q
Should the definitions and language be updated?
S.taff recommends that the d~finitiQna be ad,ded and. the lanCJu~qe
be updated in an effort to defin~ and more clearly state the
meaninq of the ordinance.
~~\,:i:'
~>:-,' , "
~'~';RIIW~.1:L~
-
council Rpt 90-165
July 31, 1990
. Page 4.
o Should the changes effecting mandatory recycling be initiated?
staff recommends that the Solid Waste Management ordinance be
amended to require that recycling be mandated to all residential,
multiple-family and commercial, industrial and institutional
owners and occupants~ This recommendation is based the existence
of high portions of; commercial, industrial and mUltiple-family
properties within the city, funding considerations, and other
information provided at the July 10th Council Workshop.
.
,
.
\
-
-
..
1
KINU'l'EB
COUNCIL WORXSBSSION
July :t7, 1"0
A Council Worksession was held on July 17, 1990 at 5:00 p. m. in the
Raspberry Room of City Hall. Present were Mayor Berg and
Councilmembers Kritzler, Redepenningf Anderson and Shirley 0 Also
l"'resent were staff members: City Manager steve Mielke, community
Development Director Tom Harmening, Planning and Economic Development
Director Jim Kerrigan, EconO'1uic Development Specialist Brian
Fri tsinger t Enginee;:ing Supervisor J'im Gessele, Public Works Director
Jon Thiel
DISCUSSXOH - FUTURB PARKiNG SYSTBK FINANCING.
Council and staff discussed the future financing of the parking
system. Council recommended continuation of the financing a is
presently taking place with a small increase in the pe~~it fee. The
council also asked that this be reviewed by the parking Commission for
their recommendations.
DXSCUSSION - REPaSE/SANITATION ISSUES AND OPTIONS
The Council and staff discussed the following options with regard to
refuse/sanitation issues~
o
Should volume base refuse collection be implemented in the city
service area?
After considerinq all the pros and cons of this system change, the
Council decided that there should be no change in this area, with the
possible exception of a senior citizen discount. They asked staff to
study the possibility of offering a discount to senior citizens.
o Should city service area refuse collection continue as a city
operated function, be contracted to a private firm or allowed to
become an opan hauling system?
council felt that this area should continue as is.
o Should recycling collection be expanded into townhouse type
multifamily areas by the City contracted hauler?
Staff recommended that townh,ome type dwellings and other bui.ldinqs
(where this collection would be feasible) be added to our curbside
collection 5yste~ contract with Waste Management.
Council agreed that this should be done.
o Should collection of "plastics" be added to the city curbe:.ids
collection contract?
staff recommended that HOPE and PETE plastics collection be added to
the curbside collection program. The Council agreed t~3t this should
be done.
".
,
o Should an ordinance mandating recycling by multifamily properties
and possibly co~ercial and industrial properties be adopted
111
. . ...,.
2
.
counc.il agreed that such an ordinance should be adopted.
a Should a recycling incentive program by a cash drawing or credit
adjustment be implemented.
Staff recommended that a "Recycle for Cash'~ program. be instituted on a
limited basis.
council agreed that this should be done.
o Should bulk pick-up (previous spring clean-up) be a general fund
expense?
o Staff recommended considering charging for part or all of the
service.
Council recommended discussing this again at budget time,
o Should yard waste collection continue as it is now done?
s'taff recommended continuing yard waste pick-up but changing to a
route method of collection instead of call-in.
council agreed that this should be done.
o Should spring and fall leaf pick-up be a general fund expense~
~ Staff recommended that consideration be made as to the method of
collection and if refuse collection is contracted, the sprinq and fall
leaf pick-up is included as part of that contract.
The Council recommended that this area of service continue as is and
that it be reviewed at budget time.
o Should brush pick~up be a general fund expense?
Staff recommended that a route metJloo of pick-up be seriously
considered along with a pick-up charge if general fund needs are a
priority. Brush pick=up can relliain a city operated function with
ex.isting equipment and manpower.
-,
Council recrnwmendad continuing operations as is and review at budqet
time~
REPORT ON LANDFILL
Dick Nowlin and M~rk Hansen,discussed the following with the Council:
/) prelim.i.nary Goat estinvltea of remediation
o Val."iou$ fundinq mechanill3ms
.
\
..
.. I
~:~"
;)\-~.
',jo:,.-'-.,
t.6{t:
f::,.
;',<'''',
~;;}~:,:...-..,
;".0::":'"
.",.' , "
~t
,~" \' '
, '
,,-,
.",
\~-:-~ ~
,-:;;' ;;~
~':'-. -:.-,;' .
,~;-;,,').';.;"<::----' '
ADJO~
The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent.
ATTEST:
Nelson w~ Berg, Mayor
Councilmembers:
~ Oll:JfI__
3
-..J.W..
..
<Ii