Memo Refuse/Sanitation Issues and Options •� � ' �
_ �
� CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 9, 1992
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Refuse/Sanitation Issues and Options
Purpose
The purpose of this workshop is to update the Council on current
refuse, recycling, sanitation practices; propose some procedural
changes; and review staff study of contracting out refuse
collection in the 1994 budget process.
The following information will outline current refuse/sanitation
related services provided by the city and review current and
historical practices. Each area defined will be followed by
staff comments and recommendations. In some areas there will be
considerable background information given. The information is
. given to provide Council with a good understanding of our current
services provided by private industry.
Services to be outlined are as follows:
o Automated Refuse Collection (City Service Area)
0 300 Gallon Container Collection (City Service Area)
o Recycling Collection (Curbside & Drop off)
o Extra Bulk Item Pick-up (City Service Area)
o Free Bulk Item Drop off (City Wide}
o Yard Waste Pick-up (City Service Area) �
o Spring and Fall Leaf Pick-up (City Wide)
o Brush Fick-up (City Wide)
•
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 2
� Summary of Review Goals
The following concepts were used by staff in reviewing the
refuse/recycling services previously mentioned. It was
determined that these concepts or goals would address the
concerns of staff as well as the residents of Hopkins.
o Maintain user friendliness as much as possible
o Fine tune procedures to have more consistency thereby
maximizing labor
o Try to utilize the most cost effective options. Implement
user fees for some services to make it as fair to everyone
as possible. Include free options with the user fee ,
services.
o If we do not contract out the refuse collection, develop a
new collection schedule to maximize efficiency of labor and
equipment.
Summary of Recommendations �
• Refuse Collection (Page 4 - 8)
o Discontinue using two trucks on Monday, Tuesday, and 1/2 of
Wednesday. Implement a one truck route using a 10 hour,
four day per week system.
o Hours of collection 6:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. using 10 hour, 4
day system.
o Hold off purchasing new truck until at least 1994. Keep
both existing trucks so one could be used as a spare and
also to pick up containers at city buildings and parks.
o Make preparation so we can get out of the business in a
timely manner if legislative or other mandates force us to.
o Review collection again during 1994 budget process.
o Continue for the time being, our present volume base system
of 1, 2, or 3- 90 gallon containers. Hold off changing
anything until after the next legislative system.
•
. } ' •
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 3
• 300 Gallon Service (Page 8- 9)
o Discontinue Service.
Recyclinq (Page 10 - 12)
o. Continue current service with minor modifications.
o Discontinue $50.00 Cash Award Program.
o Continue charging for replacement containers.
o Continue recycling drop off program with Minnetonka.
Bulk Pick Up (Page 14)
o Continue current service.
Free Bulk Drop Off (City Wide) (Page 13)
o Continue current programs.
o Add appliances to list of acceptable items.
. Fall Leaf Pick Up (Page 16 - 17)
o Free between 2nd Monday of October until November 30th.
o Small fee charged to Bellgrove and Interlachen neighborhoods
for their leaf pick up process.
o Continue this service even if we get out of the refuse
business.
Yard Waste (Page 15)
o Charge $1.00 per bag - sticker system
o Implement free Saturday drop off between 2nd Monday in April
until the 2nd Monday in October.
Brush Pick Up (Page 18 - 19)
o Charge $10.00 per pick up.
o Free Saturday drop off coinciding with yard waste.
�
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 4
� Service: Automated Refuse Collection
Budqet Fund: Refuse Utility
Amount Collected: 3,100 tons
*Cost of Service: Approximately $459,000/year
*Cost to Resident: Collection $7.90/HH/Mo
Disposal $9.35/HH/Mo
Tax $1.12/HH/Mo
*NOTE - The cost of this service covers all expenses not covered
by additional user fees applied.
Background:
Hopkins began a city operated refuse collection system in 1919
which collected all refuse from both businesses and residents.
This was discontinued in 1929 and open hauling was allowed. In
1940 the city resumed refuse collection for nearly all the city
with the exception of large industrial businesses. Al1
commercial refuse generators were given the option to use the
city service if they chose to. In 1979, along with the closure
of the last remaining city landfill, the city contracted out for
refuse collection. All residential, single family through
triplex properties were kept on the city collection system and
serviced by a contract with Waste Technology, a subsidiary of
� Reuter Corporation. The city allowed all other refuse generators
to operate with an open hauling system.
Since July 1986 the city has operated the automated refuse
collection system for residential single family through triplex
areas (city service area). This collection system was taken over
by the city after poor performance by the contracted hauler,
Waste Technology. In the fall of 1986 approximately four hundred
300 gallon containers, located in the alley areas of the city,
were replaced with individual 90 gallon containers. Currently,
90 gallon roll-out containers are collected by one man operated�
automated collection trucks. Routes are collected on a weekly
basis Monday through Wednesday.
•
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 5
� Current Situation:
Recycling mandates and increased costs have made the 90 gallon
container larger than necessary for the small refuse generating
resident. We are also now mandated by State Statute to offer a
volume or weight based pricing system. Since weight based
systems are not yet a proven technology, volume based pricing
must be sufficient for the time being. We do currently offer
somewhat of a volume based pricing system in that anyone in need
of a second 90 gallon container must pay double what they pay for
the first one. This issue is, fortunately for us, not clearly
defined in the Waste Management Act. Eventually, as mandated
recycling goals increase, future changes may dictate that we
offer smaller containers to encourage more recycling. Costs to
initiate a more varied volume based system will involve capital
purchases of co�tainers plus possible truck modifications.
Other state mandates of concern are current material bans (i.e.
yard waste, brush) hazardous waste (ie paint, oil, fluorescent
tubes, and batteries) and others that may come in the future.
- should city service area refuse collection continue as a
city operated function, be contracted to a private firm or
� allowed to become an open hauling system?
The collection and disposal of refuse has become a very
complex issue since 1986. Separate collection is mandated
for regular refuse, recyclable material, major appliances,
fluorescent tubes, batteries, hazardous materials, and yard
waste (includes leaves and brush). Volume base systems are
required by state law and have become almost standard
methods of collection. A hauler is also required to monitor
the refuse to ensure that no undesirable materials are in
the container(s) in order to avoid fines or penalties. All
of these requirements have made it difficult to operate an
automated system like ours.
Minneapolis and Hopkins are the only Metro area cities that
provide refuse collection as a city operated service.
Minneapolis contracts approximately one-half of the city for
cost and service comparative purposes.
In Hennepin County, city contracted refuse services for
residential areas are provided by the following cities;
Excelsior, Champlain, Osseo, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park,
Tonka Bay and Wayzata. This is a city contract that is
billed through the utility billing process. Extra pick-up
is either billed directly to the resident or provided by the
purchase of special bags or stickers.
•
September 30, 1992 Memo �
Page 6
� The remaining cities in Hennepin County are currently on
open hauling systems where each resident hires their own
hauler. These haulers are licensed by the city and are
required to provide various services, such as volume based
collection, recycling and yard waste collection. Some cities
are considering organized collection systems which designate
areas to each hauler based on their share of the market.
This is intended to eliminate the main disadvantage of open
hauling; the possibility of up to 15 or more different
trucks operating on each street providing the various
collections now required. Open hauling causes more wear to
streets and alleys because of the more frequent truck
traffic in residential areas.
The amount of manpower to provide the various pick-ups that
the city now performs has slowly increased over the past
three years to where it has become a dominate factor in the
street/sanitation division operations. That division is
strained to provide all the services on a continuous basis.
Our system is relatively small and it is difficult to
justify all the special equipment needed to make the various
required collections. This was very evident when we were
involved in the collection of recyclables. This is now
being accomplished very successfully with a contracted
collection by Waste Management.
� Staff has reviewed our current refuse collection costs and
found that our costs for collection are very much in line
with private industry. It is therefore very difficult to
justify a city wide contract at this time, even though our
current services are putting a strain on our
Street/Sanitation Division. This is partly due to this -
division losing two employees over the last two years.
Future legislative mandates and the elimination of EPR as a
disposal option, could make it much more difficult to keep
our collection cost competitive in the upcoming years.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that the city stay in the refuse collection
business for at least one more year since our costs are
presently competitive. The following recommendations are based
on the assumption that Council will concur with the staff on this
issue. They furthermore are being recommended as a means to fine
tune our current procedures, maximize labor and equipment, and
provide us options in the upcoming year.
o Discontinue using two trucks on Monday, Tuesday, and 1/2 of
Wednesday. Implement a one truck route using a 10 hour,
four day per week system.
� o Hours of collection 6:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. using 10 hour, 4
day system.
�eptember 30, 1992 Memo
Page 7
� o Hold off purchasing new truck until at least 1994. Keep
both existing trucks so one could be used as a spare and
also to pick up containers at city buildings and parks.
o Make preparation so we can get out of the business in a
timely manner if legislative or other mandates force us to.
o Review collection again during 1994 budget process.
- Should volume base refuse collection be implemented in the
city service area?
The current practice of many private refuse haulers is to
offer a volume base method of collection. This usually is
based on the normal garbage can of 32 gallons and a rate is
offered for one, two, or three can service with yard waste
bags charged as an extra service. This can be a charge per
bag ($.050-$2.00/bag) or by purchase of special bags or
stickers. Brush is also generally an extra charge for any
significant amounts. Some haulers offer unlimited pick-up
and/or an 18 gallon (common kitchen garbage bag) low volume
rate as further additional services. Any bulk items are
generally picked up and charged for on an item by time
basis. The current average private hauler rate for a two
� can (64 gallon) service is approximately $20.00/month in
this area.
With our current automated equipment a volume base system is
difficult. We feel we could provide a 60 gallon container
with our present equipment along with our 90 gallon
containers. If a large number of residents Choose the 60
gallon container, we would face a large capital investment.
At $45.00 per container the cost could be as much as $70,000
if half the residents change sizes. This could be deferred
by charging some or all of the cost to the resident as an
initial service charge. A fee for subsequent changes and a
minimum time between changes would probably also be
necessary. Other size volume rates would require special
routes and the use of rear load trucks. Offering these
additional services would raise overall costs and increase
. administrative overhead, but would be more sensitive to
volume generation.
For the city to offer a more extensive menu of volume
options it would require the purchase of different refuse
trucks or contract with a private hauler. Also, we would be
back to manually handling most refuse containers and would
need to change routes . A private hauler could provide any
combination of volume base as specified in a bid
specification. Open hauling would allow each homeowner to
� select a refuse hauler that provided a collection service
that met their needs.
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 8
� It was previously mentioned that the city currently does
offer somewhat of a volume based refuse collection that, for
the present time, meets State Statute requirements.
Residents are able to receive 1, 2, or 3- 90 gallon
containers. Although our present volume base system
technically meets State Statute requirements, I do not
believe it meets the intent of the law, and I'm quite
certain that new legislation will be adopted in the near
future making us change our present volume based system.
Recommendation:
Continue for the time being, our present volume based system of
1, 2, or 3- 90 gallon containers. Delay changing anything until
after the next legislative system, and after a decision is made
whether or not to contract out collection, or stay in the
collection business for quite sometime.
Service: 300 Gallon Special Pick Up
Budqet Fund: Refuse Utility (extra fee, $25 each dump)
Amount Collected: 60 tons
Revenue Generated: $5,850
Cost of Service: $19,000/year
Cost to Resident: $25 for each 1.25 cu yards
� Background:
Extra refuse in 300 gallon containers is presently collected at a
charge of $25 per dump on a special arrangement basis. 106
requests for these containers were received in 1991 with a total
of 234 dumps. Revenue generated from this was approximately
$5,850. Refuse generated from this collection amounts to
approximately 60 tons of refuse each year. The use of this
service is increasing as more residents become aware of this
inexpensive service. The cost of $25 pe�, dump does not cover
actual costs. At the current rate, it costs $13,150 more than
the revenue collected for this service.
Considerations:
Because education is difficult with this type of service, problem
materials get placed in the container and require removal by city
crews.
, The type of material collected through this service also requires
us to drive to the Transfer station in Brooklyn Park for disposal
as EPR rejects these loads.
Other problems associated with this collection are when renters
request the service unbeknownst to the property owner, extra
billing efforts, and containers that are left there for many
� months with no dumping activity.
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 9
� - Should the city continue to offer this collection option?
If we continue to offer this option we must be more explicit
in the types of materials that can be put in the container
and enforce it. Items such as lumber, cardboard, scrap
metals should be banned from this disposal option so tMat
they can be separated for recycling purposes. The charge
for this service should increase due to the time consuming
hours spent delivering and removing containers, and the
extra haul time to the transfer station. Staff would like
to see this alternative eliminated altogether. In order to
make elimination of this program work we would have to
utilize the Bulk Pick up more and require that small items
be boxed or bagged (which was the requirement for the spring
clean up).
Recommendation:
Discontinue service. Prepare a list of options that can be
mailed to each home owner needing this type of service.
�
�
•
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 10
� service: Recyclinq Collection - Curbside
Budqet Fund: Refuse Utility
Amount Collected: Curbside 691 tons
Cost: 105,500
Cost to Resident: $0.75/month - includes drop off
Background:
The city has offered curbside recycling since February 1989. The
curbside program began operations with SuperCycle, Inc., then
went to city forces and was contracted to Waste Management, Inc.
on January 1, 1990. This contract expires on June 30 of 1993.
Funding is provided in part by the refuse utility ,charge with
grant assistance from Hennepin County. Recent changes to the
funding policy will reduce our assistance by approximately
$20,000. The 1993-1996 Funding Policy will reimburse cities at
a rate of $1.75/HH/Mo or for Hopkins, approximately $68,000 per
year. County grant assistance is contingent on the city
continuing to achieve an 18% percent abatement of our total
residential waste stream (1034 tons/year). It is also contingent
on the continuation of Hennepin County receiving funds from
collection of the tip fee and SCORE. Both of which are affected
by certain political issues and could be eliminated at any time.
Possible factors are; waste designation litigation, state budget
cuts.
� - Should collection of "mixed paper and magazines",be added to
the city curbside collection contract?
At this time there is no mandate by Hennepin County to add
this material. When our contract is up for re-negotiation I
feel it would be appropriate at that time to examine the
addition of this material to our curbside collection
program.
- Should the mandatory recycling ordinance be enforced?
There are different opinions on the enforcement issue and
how it effects participation. At this time staff recommends
responding on a complaint basis with a gentle reminder
notice given to non-recyclers would be adequate. If tonnage
of recycle materials decrease, tougher enforcement may be
necessary at that time.
- Should the recyclinq incentive proqram, cash drawinq be
discontinued?
Incentive programs were being used as a method to encourage
residents to recycle. These programs would appear to be most
useful when initiating a program but certainly will help
. motivate a few additional people to participate if their
neighbors happen to win. It is difficult to determine if
such incentives are cost effective. Since our initial
implementation of this program we have passed a mandatory
Sept�mber 30, 1992 Memo
Page 11
� recycling ordinance which could be used as incentive if
enforced. Since funding for recycling is decreasing in 1993
this would be a good time to eliminate the program.
The "Recycle for Cash" program should be discontinued due to
the shrinking funding assistance. Because of the proposed
decrease in funding from Hennepin County and good
participation to date, this would be a good time to
eliminate this program from our budget. My feeling is that
it has limited effect. Most people are very committed to
recycling and do not need this incentive. Those that are
not recycling are not any more motivated by this program to
participate. Those recycling now are recycling �ecause they
believe in recycling.
- Should the city continue to fund replacement of recyclinq
containers $7.00 each?
Hennepin County originally provided funds to purchase
recycling containers, however, this funding is not available
to purchase replacement containers. Beginning 1/1/92, after
having replaced over 100 containers in 1991, we decided to
discontinue replacing the containers free and offered them
to residents for $7.00. I have had some opposition from
residents when I tell them they must pay for a new
� container. Our contract with Waste Management does not
require the use of a special container and residents can use
Kraft paper bags, or a recycling container(s) of their
choice. When I inform residents of their other options they
are usually satisfied. I do not know the impact of this on
our participation.
- Contract ends June 1993, contract or re-neqotiate?
Our contract is up on June 30, 1993. Since Minnetonka is
currently in their re-bidding process it would seem
beneficial to wait for the results of their bids and
determine at that time whether to re-bid or re-negotiate
with Waste Management.
Recommendation:
o Discontinue the "Recycle for Cash" program
o Continue charging for replacement containers
�
_ _
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 12
� Service: Recyclinq Collection - Drop off
Budget Fund: Refuse Utility
Amount Collected: Drop Off 195 tons �
Cost: Approximately $6,000 (40� paid by HC funding)
Cost to Resident: $.75/hh/mo (includes curbside collection)
Background:
The City has also jointly operated a recycling drop off center
with Minnetonka since July 1988. Operational costs are shared
64% Minnetonka and 32o Hopkins based on population of the two
cities. Currently Minnetonka is re-bidding their recycling
contract and in so doing, Waste Management has projected an
increase in the drop off center operational costs. For budgetary
purposes Minnetonka has budgeted the cost at $18,000 of which
approximately $6,000 would be Hopkins share of costs. Because of
the convenience and tonnage collected at the drop off it is an
important part of our program and necessary to help us meet our
goals.
*NOTE: The total reaycling budget is 128,000 for 1993 of which
approximately 69,000 will be paid for by Hennepin County Funding.
Recommendation:
� Continue program with Minnetonka.
�
September 30, 1992 Memo
�age 13
� Service: Free Bulk Item Drop Off (city wide)
Budqet Fund: Refuse Utility
Amount Collected: 150 tons
Cost of Service: Approximately $20,000/year
Cost to Resident: $0
Background: �
This service was initiated in 1991 along with the Bulk Item Pick
Up, as a replacement for the previous spring clean-up program and
quarterly pick-ups.
The Free Bulk Drop off offers residents a chance to dispose of
items at no charge, simiiar to the previous Spring Clean ups.
The major difference is that they must drop it off, we don't pick
up. There are also some items we do not allow dropped off, such
as appliances, hazardous materials and those materials banned
from disposal in landfills and incinerators such as batteries,
paint, florescent tubes, oil, yard waste brush and leaves. This
service is provided twice a year, Spring and Fall.
Considerations:
The free bulk drop off gives residents the opportunity to dispose
� of items at no charge twice a year. It also provides tonnages
for our recycling goals because we can keep recyclable material
separate. We recycle lumber, carpeting and scrap metal during
this drop off.
- should this service continue?
This service does offer free disposal options for most items
twice per year. It also uses very little manpower and
allows us to recycle material that otherwise would be
landfilled or incinerated. We should continue this service
and possibly review a way to help the elderly get their
' materials down to the site perhaps through coordinations
with the Jaycees or Rotary. Also, appliances should be
added to the list of free items that can be disposed of .
Appliances are very time consuming for city crews to pick
up. The $8.00 fee to dispose of the appliances is minimal
when you consider its saving time for our crews, and more
importantly, possibly eliminating a potential back injury.
Recommendation:
o Continue current program.
o Add appliances to list of acceptable items.
�
September 30, �992 Memo
Page 14
� Service: Extra Bulk Item Pick-up
(city service area only)
Budqet Fund: Refuse Utility (both)
Amount Collected: 44 tons
Cost of service: Approximately $16,000/year
Cost to Resident: $15 per bulk item
Background:
This service was initiated in 1991 along with the Bulk Item Drop
Off, as a replacement for the previous spring clean-up program
and quarterly pick-ups.
The Bulk Item pick-up is structured to be more user-fee based.
It is done weekly on a call-in basis for a fee of $15.00 per bulk
item or for each 3/4 cu yd of material collected. It is billed
out through the utility bill. In 1991 we had 209 requests for
- pick ups which generated $5,031 in revenue, January-August of
1992 we have had 165 requests which generated $3,695 in revenue
to date.
This service provides a more year round service to residents who
are moving and in need of a disposal option for extra bulk refus.e
items. It also allows us to pick up appliances which must be
� handled by authorized recyclers according to State law. This is
a method common to almost all private refuse collection services.
Although the cost of this service depends on the number of pick-
ups, the average cost is approximately $16,000 per year. With
revenue generated about $5,000, this service does not completely
pay for itself and leaves about half coming from the monthly fee.
We have to provide some outlet for extra refuse. Previously
anyone moving out or in that had extra refuse had no option for
disposal except to wait 3-12 months for a quarterly or spring
pick up. The weekly bulk pick up provides a more readily
available service.
- Should the weekly bulk pick-up continue as is or change back
to Quarterly pick ups or be eliminated, fee increase?
This service should continue as is and increase the fee if
necessary to be closer to self supporting. To return to
quarterly or a Spring type pick up would decrease the �
availability of this type of service and put unnecessary
burden on our labor forces. To make this a free service
would be a disservice to those residents who do not use this
type of service.
Recommendation:
� o Continue current program.
Sept�mber 30, 1992 Memo
Page 15
� Service: Yard �aste Pick-up
Budqet Fund: Refuse Utility
Amount Collected: 200 tons
Cost: Approximately $46,000/year - Includes Fall
leaf pick up costs (Hennepin County
rebates city 31,00o each year)
Cost to Resident: $0
Background:
In 1987 the city began collecting yard waste on a call-in Basis
and in 1989 switched to the current system, same day collection
as regular refuse. The cost of providing this service was
originally offset by the reduction in landfill tipping fees. Then
in 1989 legislation banned this material from landfills and
separate collection was required. State law requires that yard
waste not be collected with regular refuse sent to landfills and
incinerators. Because of this legislation, Hennepin County began
funding yard waste collection programs which gave the city
$31,000 in funding assistance for.yard waste collection.
Considerations;
Hennepin County funds about half our program. Most residents do
• not bag grass, only leaves in the fall. A user fee would make
those who use it the most pay for the service.
- Should yard waste collection continue as is?
Ideally, staff would like to see yard waste converted over
to a user fee basis for pick up combined with a free drop
off. This would hopefully reduce the number of pick ups,
and possibly reduce the number of back injuries the city
experiences each year associated with this service. It
would also make those who use the service pay for it, and
possibly help promote recycling by giving incentive for
people to leave their lawn clippings on their grass. A free
drop off would probably be held at Public Works, each
Saturday whereby residents could bring their clippings to
the site and deposit them right into a truck.
Recommendation:
o Charge $1.00 per bag for pick up - sticker system
o Implement free Saturday drop off between 2nd Monday in
April through the 2nd Monday in October.
�
�eptember 30, 1992 Memo
Page 16 _
� Service: Fall Leaf Pick-up
Budqet Fund: General - P.W. Street Cleaninq
Amount Collected: 400 tons
Cost of Service: See Yard Waste costs
Cost to Resident: See Yard Waste costs
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 400 tons of leaves per year. Leaves are
collected with a rear load refuse truck in bags throughout the
city service area from mid-October through November. In the
Belgrove and Interlachen areas leaves are also collected from the
streets with dump trucks. This method reduces collection costs �
as over half the leaves in the city are generated in these two
areas. The leaves and yard waste pick-up are stored at our
gravel pit and given away to residents after they have been
composted. Previously the County assisted in composting the
material and removed any excess to sites for pick-up by County
residents. In 1991 the city rented the county equipment to mix
the material. This method of disposal can continue as long as
residents continue to use the material, and as long as we have a
site available.
. - Should fall leaf pick-up be a qeneral fund expense?
This service has been provided as a combined refuse and
street cleaning expense. Most cities do collect leaves
accumulated on streets as part of street cleaning but
require leaves on lawns to be collected separately handled
by the home owner. Hopkins historically has not collected
leaves from business and apartments due to the lack of
controls even though it has been a general fund service.
A charge could be implemented per bag, special bags could be
made available for purchase or required stickers could be
sold. If refuse collection is contracted the hauler could
be made responsible for this collection. Consideration
could be made to use our 300 gallon containers where
possible to eliminate the problem of breaking bags. If �a
volume base system is implemented on our system we would
probably have 90 gallon containers available to use for this
collection. ,Possibly several people could share a
container.
The above paragraph includes many options that could be
utilized for leaf pick up. However, staff does not feel
that we should change our current program except for a small
� fee charged to the Bellgrove and Interlachen residents for
their special service. Our current program comes at a time
of the year when we have crews available to perform the
service, and we do not have to postpone any other
�eptember 30, 1992 Memo
Page 17
� maintenance activities. 5taff feels that we should perform
this service even if we get out of the refuse collection
business.
Recommendation:
o Free pick up between 2nd Monday of October until November
30th.
0 5ma11 fee charged to Bellgrove and Interlachen neighborhoods
for their leaf pick up process.
o Continue this service even if we get out of the refuse
business.
�
�
•
. � • ,
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 18
� Service: Brush Pick-up/Diseased Tree pick up
Budqet Fund: General - P.W. Tree Service
Amount Collected: 600 tons
Cost of service: Approximately $40,000
Cost to Resident: $0
Background:
The city has provided brush pick-up at the curb since 1972 as a
General Fund Public Works tree service function. This service
collects approximately 600 tons of brush/logs per year. The
brush is collected every Friday on a call-in basis throughout the
year. Currently we are averaging 150 stops per week from May
through October, and 20 to 40 during the rest of the year. The
brush is chipped or burned at our gravel pit. Logs from the
diseased tree program are picked up on a call-in basis, and
either hauled to Hennepin County Tree Recycling Center or chipped
by an outside contractor.
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. Most cities require brush to be picked up
by their refuse haulers. A few provide the service at a small
charge.
� Considerations;
We may have difficulty in the future burning brush if
restrictions are tightened by the PCA and/or complaints of nearby
residents become too frequent.
This material is banned from disposal along with regular
household refuse. Because of this the number of stops has
increased as residents used to put small amounts in their refuse
container and no longer can.
Hopkins is one of the few cities collecting brush as a general
tax expense. Some cities provide locations for drop off by
residents and licensed refuse haulers. The County contracts to
provide a drop off location in Maple Grove for all haulers and
residents. Charges for this vary with size and type of material.
Most cities require brush to be picked up as part of regular
refuse.
Should brush pick up continue as is?
Our current equipment allows us to perform this service
without major difficulty. However, the increased number of
stops and quantities collected are consequently increasing
the manpower requirements, and performance is somewhat
difficult when combined with yard waste pick-up. A pick-up
• charge of 10 or 15 dollars per stop could be initiated to
help defray part or all of the costs, and give incentive for
residents to combine their loads with neighbors or possibly
,` .' ,
.
September 30, 1992 Memo
Page 19
� use a free drop off. This charge could generate 10 to 20
thousand dollars and provide partial funding for the cost of
providing this service.
As long as the city continues to have their own forestry
crew, this service should be provided by the city even if
refuse collection is contracted out. It is another service
our forestry crews can provide with assistance from other
divisions. However, a brush pick up charge would be helpful
to smooth out the work load.
Recommendation:
o Charge $10.00 per pick up.
o Provide free Saturday drop off to coincide with yard waste.
SUNIMARY
In summary it appears that for now the city should continue
current refuse collection practices. All programs offered should
continue to be reviewed for their cost effectiveness, and user
fees for yard waste and brush should be considered as an
alternative to an increase in the refuse rate. In June of 1993,
after reviewing Minnetonka's contract, staff will recommend to
• council whether to re-negotiate or re-bid our recycling contract.
Also, by that time staff will have a better understanding of
which direction to take with refuse collection.
�
.," + � `
�eptember 30, 1992 Memo
Page 20
�
CITY OF HOPKINS
REFUSE/SANITATION RELATED 5ERVICES
Budget Cost/ Cost/
Tons Cost Ton Month
Automated Refuse Collection 3,100 459,000 $148
**Recycling Collection 691 105,500 $153
**Recycling Drop Off 195 6,000 $ 31
**Yard Waste Pick-up 200 46,000 $ 77
Spring & Fall Leaf Pick-up 400
*Extra Bulk Item Pick-up 44 16,000 $364
Bulk Item Drop-Off 150 20,004 $134
*300 gallon Pick-up 60 19,000 $317
Brush Pick-up 600 40,000 $ 67
* There is a charge for these programs so some revenue is
generated which offsets the cost.
** Hennepin County reimburses the city for these programs which
reduces our costs.
�
�