|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jim DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Jan Vanderwall; Dwayne
Stenlund; Joan Felice; and Steve Gjerdingen
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz
Others
Present: In the audience: Scott Carlson from the Roseville Patch;
and several representatives of independent garbage haulers: Chris DeLaforest,
ACE Solid Waste Hauler employee; and Mark Stoltman, Randy’s Sanitation
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of November 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, approval of the November 22, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 2, first full paragraph (Gjerdingen)
Correct
reference to County Road B to County Road B-2
·
Page 4, second paragraph, last sentence (Gjerdingen)
Change the word “area” to
“collection system”
·
Page 4, 5th paragraph, last sentence (Gjerdingen)
Change “parks and other areas”
to “government facilities”
·
Page 4, Item 6, Title, Neighborhood TMP (DeBenedet)
Remove “Final” from title
·
Page 5, 1st full paragraph (DeBenedet)
Strike entire paragraph with the
exception of the last sentence that will remain
·
Page 11, 5th full paragraph (Gjerdingen)
Typographical correction from
“e” to “be”
·
Page 14, 3rd paragraph: Discussion of traffic
circles and roundabouts (Gjerdingen/DeBenedet)
Identify “local streets” as
“local [residential] streets”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz noted that updates on various construction projects were included in
tonight’s meeting packet or available on-line at the City’s website at
www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff report dated
December 20, 2011.
Discussion included Park
Improvement Projects (PIP) and priorities for pathways over the next four (4)
years, with Mr. Schwartz advising Chair DeBenedet that he would provide a
preliminary list of those priorities to the Commission at next month’s
meeting as it comes out of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Implementation groups. Several areas of concern for pathway safety included
Victoria north of County Road C, specifically at the curve by West Owasso
Blvd. for southbound pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic due to trees and no
practical way to improve visibility in that area. Additional areas of
concern included that, as the Park Master Plan Implementation process
continues to be refined with the accelerated bond issue term, that schedule
include the Victoria corridor as a high priority, since access to parks for
large portions of the population needed safe access to the City’s parks.
Further discussion included if
and how the acceleration of the Dale Street Project and that pathway/sidewalk
petition from residents had impacted the Victoria Street pathway and its
priority level, with Mr. Schwartz clarifying that the projects weren’t
prioritized until the Parks Master Plan had been created.
Additional discussion included
ensuring community connectivity between parks; assurances that the Pathway
Master Plan and Parks Master Plan, even though two (2) separate documents,
provide a comprehensive and cohesive priority list and address any apparent
overlaps; recognizing the scope of the Parks Master Plan and multiple issues
involved in the overall planning process to address constellations; and how
projects are and will be interchanged based on pavement deterioration.
Member Gjerdingen sought
clarification on the width of shoulders on the second phase of the Rice
Street Corridor project from County Road B-2 to Little Canada Road, with Mr.
Schwartz advising that the new roadway would have the potential for future
striping as a four (4) lane without median. Member Gjerdingen also
questioned if development of the City’s new fire station on the City campus
would include a pathway along Woodhill, with Mr. Schwartz advising that he
would look into that status and alert the Design Team as the project went
into that stage. Member Gjerdingen noted that some cities require new
development or redevelopment to make sidewalk or pathway installation a
mandatory part of their project, with Chair DeBenedet concurring, noting if
the City’s Master Plan for development included such a provision the City
should follow it.
Related to the Fairview Pathway
Project, Member Felice sought clarification on the next phase, with Mr.
Schwartz advising that the phase from County Road B to County Road B-2 would
include a reconstruction of the existing west side sidewalk and an extension
on the east side to provide a continuous sidewalk on the east side as well.
At the request of Member Felice regarding options available to provide
traffic warnings due to safety concerns, Mr. Schwartz advised that the
project is currently under design and there were challenges due to ramps and
other considerations.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
significant visibility improvements could be achieved by removing the
overgrowth from shrubs and trees on Fairview near the Highway 36 ramps on
MnDOT right-of-way along their fence. Mr. Schwartz noted that some of that
fencing will be replaced, and that should provide some positive impacts to
the area.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the City Council’s final budget for
2012 included funding for the Asset Management Software Program, as well as
phasing the proposed Utility Rate increase over two (2) years for 2012 and
2013, rather than all in one (1) year.
Member Vanderwall noted that from
comments he’d heard from Roseville residents, the focus appeared to only be
on the impact of the increase, rather than an awareness of the City’s aging
infrastructure and the importance of addressing some of those long-deferred
issues as well as consistent, cost-effective planning for the City’s future
infrastructure needs more realistically.
Member Stenlund expressed his
appreciation to Mr. Schwartz and Roseville Public Works staff for their
stabilization along the Fairway Avenue Pathway Project construction area and
blending and shaping in the ag fields and down to the trees.
5.
Organized Collection Continued Discussion
At the request of chair
DeBenedet, Mr. Schwartz reviewed the information provided as background and
information items included in tonight’s packet materials, compiled from past
packets and other sources. Mr. Schwartz also noted the positions of the
Roseville Citizen’s League and The League of Women Voters heard by the
Commission at their October 2011 meeting. Mr. Schwartz included recent
information from the City of Maplewood undergoing a similar process and
recent approval by their City Council for organized collection for that
community.
Chair DeBenedet noted inclusion
of a sample model analysis from Ms. Bloom of the software under development
and entitled, “Impacts of Heavy Trucks on Pavements – Sample Analysis”
determining Impacts of Heavy Trucks on Pavements (W. James Wilde for the MN
Local Road Research Board). Mr. Schwartz noted that the software was still
being tested, and Roseville-specific data had yet to be entered, with this
model showing various scenarios and segments. When the software tool is ready
for general consumption, Mr. Schwartz advised that you could load your own
street segment data from the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) and
cost predictions to receive a percentage of life for those segments, based on
type of street, type of soil, length of the segment being considered, land
use, roadway length and width, and other criteria. Chair DeBenedet noted
that it was a given among engineers and those working in the street
construction industry, based on their expertise, that heavy trucks damage streets
over a period of time.
Chair DeBenedet reviewed the
Commission’s initial rationale in reviewing private versus organized garbage
collection in Roseville, and past citizen studies at the request of the City
Council (e.g. 1970 study and recommendation to implement recycling and
organized garbage collection).
Discussion included safety
concerns being addressed with fewer vehicles using a roadway; residential
survey responses to a June 19, 2009 community survey specific to garbage
collection; accuracy of the information provided to the public and to the
Commission by haulers and their associations; bottom line costs for Roseville
residents as a major focus and area of concern, and the consistency of the
pricing from one resident to another city-wide and among independent haulers.
Member Felice noted the high
percentage of Roseville residents also concerned and seeking assurances on
the destination of trash collected from them individually and throughout the
broader community, as well as future ramifications based on the actual
destination (e.g. landfills versus resource recovery facilities).
Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting
his observation that a fair amount of trash currently being collected in
Roseville ends up in Wisconsin landfills; and questioned that procedure, as
well as how Wisconsin residents feel about Minnesota’s trash coming into
their state for disposal. While state governments could not prohibit trash
haulers going across state lines at this time, Chair DeBenedet noted the
negatives of communities on the receiving end of that process. Chair
DeBenedet concurred that a significant percentage of Roseville residents
(e.g. 90% in one survey) wanted their garbage handled in an
environmentally-friendly way.
Further discussion ensued
regarding survey results included in the PDF portion of the packet materials
and ratings by residents in their current garbage service, and how that
information was qualified by individual experience, or how residents based
that level of satisfaction and if comparable to other service industries, and
the need to provide a consistent system of checks and balances and
availability of a clear process for resolution if problems are found,
including continual monitoring and consequences for inaction. Members noted
that there were currently no consequences in the open collection system other
than for residents to change vendors; and the practice by some independent
vendors to offer cheaper introductory rates for a three (3) year contract,
with rates guaranteed for the first two (2) years of the contract, then a
significant increase and a penalty applied if the contract was cancelled
before the three (3) years was up.
Additional discussion included
the survey questions, their percentages, and how those percentages totaled
out based on the total number of responses; and recognizing that the survey
responses indicated that there were a substantial number of citizens
concerned with their environment, the destination of their trash, and based
on those responses and the studies completed in the past, the majority seemed
more supportive of an organized collection system than the vocal minority
attending Public Hearings, informational meetings, and other public testimony
heard to-date.
Chair DeBenedet opined that the
overall picture seemed to indicate public opinion supported recommendation to
the City Council for pursuing organized collection.
Member Felice noted the most
important thing to residents was the bottom line price of their hauler; and
opined that organized collection would provide for a lower cost and more
consistency city-wide.
Member Vanderwall noted the
variances of the quoted prices requested of and received from independent
haulers and their discrepancies with actual billings to Roseville residents.
Member Vanderwall opined that all indications were that residents were paying
higher costs than those quoted by haulers.
Member Felice concurred, noted
that her collection cost was higher than those quoted.
Chair DeBenedet noted that he
frequently did due diligence by contacting his vendors requesting lower
rates.
Member Vanderwall questioned the
business billing practices where residents were charged higher rates if they
weren’t paying attention, and only those alerting their vendors received any
remedy. While recognizing that this may not be applicable to every vendor,
if the practice was evident in some instances, there was an obvious need for
more accountability.
Chair DeBenedet referenced the
Table of pros/cons and comparisons (page 47 of the PDF materials), with the
only outstanding item in those comparisons was the preference of residents
using Walter’s service in their providing free yard waste pick-up.
Members Felice, Stenlund, and Vanderwall noted that, while it may appear
“free,” residents paid an upfront fee at the beginning of the season, and the
service was not free.
Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting
that independent haulers were in business to make money, and regardless of
what appeared to be a “free” service, residents were paying for services
somehow.
Member Stenlund questioned how to
determine who were actually licensed haulers in Roseville (page 33 of the PDF
materials), noting that “Garbageman” trucks were in the City of Roseville,
but he wasn’t sure if they had been licensed by the City.
Member Vanderwall questioned if
the Commission would look at unlicensed vendors with an organized collection
system or how collections would be enforced.
Mr. Schwartz advised that if the
City was billing for organized collection, a resident wouldn’t want to pay
additional costs for private collection.
Chair DeBenedet,, using the City
of Maplewood discussions as an example, noted how billings could be done as a
separate line item on City utility bills as a convenience for residents to
write only one check; in addition to haulers guaranteed they’d be paid via
one check from the City of Roseville, rather than billing and waiting for
payment from multiple sources. Chair DeBenedet also noted that the City
would have recourse for nonpayment of fees through property tax assessments.
Member Vanderwall noted the
importance of defining how the Commission saw the system working, based on
other model options, such as if several residents are currently sharing
service/collection due to their limited garbage.
Member Gjerdingen noted the need
to include language, currently in City Code, for alternative collections
options, such as “environmentally-friendly alternatives.”
While discussing these elements
in principle at this time, as the Commission got closer to determining if
they would recommend organization collection, Member Vanderwall noted the
need to clearly define each of those issues and which option(s) would be
best; including how to maintain the same number of haulers and their current
percentages, and alternatives if haulers chose not to meet pricing levels.
Member Felice suggested
consideration of a period of time identified for the City and haulers to
reach consensus, and if not, to proceed to a single hauler.
Member Vanderwall noted one
concern in the process is the perception that the City is attempting to
negatively impact local businesses and create additional unemployment.
Member Vanderwall suggested that the process include maintaining the ability
of existing haulers in keeping similar percentages to their current business
operations.
Member Gjerdingen noted that
Member Vanderwall’s suggestion was also part of the 2002 committee
recommendation.
Member Vanderwall however noted
that it was important to make sure the rates were cost-effective for
Roseville residents, while meeting business and operational costs for the
haulers.
Member Felice concurred, also
noting the need that those rates were equal across the board, arrived at by
consensus of haulers, and at a reasonable charge and participation level.
Chair DeBenedet expressed
interest in using a Best Value Contracting process versus a standard bidding
process, similar to that used by the City in its most recent recycling
contractor process. Chair DeBenedet noted that this would require
significant detail in the initial process, and referenced the offer received
from Mr. Hansen with Ramsey County in his presentation to the Commission at a
previous meeting to make available their technical engineering expertise for
research and/or background information to municipalities. Chair DeBenedet
noted that, if a consultant in this field was available, it would be good for
the City, as a next step in this long, legal process created through lobbying
efforts of trash haulers, allowing time to work out the details mentioned by
Commissioners among many other issues.
Chair DeBenedet suggested moving
forward with a recommendation to the City Council that organized trash
collection be actively pursued with future implementation with the purpose of
addressing specific goals, including preserving with as much practicality as
possible the current percentages of independent haulers within the Roseville
community.
Discussion ensued regarding the
number of haulers (e.g. four to seven) within a contract period; use of the
Best Value Procurement process; how to establish and weight criteria; how the
number and/or type of residential complaints of vendors would impact their
proposals and consideration; vendor competition; availability of sizes and
types of collection containers based on customer preference.
Criteria discussed randomly
included: destination of the trash; average city cost based on weighting with
all customers paying the same amount; variables of nationwide vendors and
smaller, independent vendors in meeting prices; percentages of market share;
efficiencies for haulers operating on fewer streets; how much latitude was
available in bidding documents based on the expertise of legal and
engineering consultants; and the preference for the City to outline its needs
and preferences with vendors then responding to if and how they could comply.
Additional discussion included
market share of current vendors, whether currently accurate or needing
updating and verification (page 76 of PDF materials); and requirements of
vendors if they want to be included in the bidding group to provide accurate
market share data (e.g. number of households serviced), and if that
information is not provided, the City would not preserve a percentage of
market share for that vendor.
Other criteria included type of
fuel used by individual vendors; mandatory criteria versus preferences.
Member Stenlund spoke in support
of moving forward with the process; however, he questioned the perception of
Roseville residents in the role of government, opining that unless they
supported the City becoming involved in this or the majority of the public
was neutral, it was a waste of time to proceed.
Member Gjerdingen noted, in the
existing system, there was no way to ask haulers or provide an option to
dictate the destination of trash. While acknowledging the goal of reducing
wear and tear on Roseville streets, Member Gjerdingen noted that the number
one goal of the process was to meet state and city mandates, standards and
goals to reduce waste; and noted there was m ore trash now than in 2002; and
use of the Newport facility was an efficient way to provide a strong
incentive for getting rid of garbage.
Member Felice noted that initial
perceptions with the Maplewood presentation that she had attended were of unrest;
however, when the factual information on costs and benefits were provided,
there was more support. Member Felice opined that the City of Roseville was
most likely in a similar position with viewpoints, including that of
municipal government and their involvement, even though the same services
would be provided.
Member Stenlund noted the number
of considerations to be addressed; however, he observed that the current
system provided no way to improve trash collection services beyond being
selectively complaint-driven.
Member Felice suggested that
there may be initial concerns from the public, however, once they understand
that a process was built into the contract to address problems and complaints
with varying consequences based on the frequency and type of complaint, they
would recognize a more consistent recourse was then available for them.
Member Stenlund opined that
organized collection was doable; and recommended that the City move forward;
however, with the caveat that providing choices on the different colors and
sizes for containers seemed important to residents.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, moving forward with a recommendation to the City Council to
pursue organized trash collection, with an attempt to preserve as much as
practical the current market share percentages of independent haulers in the
community; with the first step asking staff to prepare a formal resolution
for review and consideration by the PWET Commissioners at their next meeting
with the intent of moving the recommendation forward to the City Council at a
future date.
Specific Goals discussed by
the Commission, with staff directed to incorporate them into the DRAFT
resolution language, included:
1) To save money
for all of our residents and city as a whole through organized trash
collection.
2) Establish a
timeline and process, according to state statute for implementation;
1) Identify and
ensure all waste goes to Newport or a similar resource collection facility;
2) Vendors and
the City provide residents with transparency in the actual cost of trash
collection;
3) Provide for
an adequate complaint system and/or conflict resolution for residents and the
municipality with vendors
4) Any and all
complaints can be dealt with in a uniform and transparent manner;
5) Fewer trash
hauler trucks on City roadways, resulting in: a) less wear/tear on roads, b)
less noise in neighborhoods, and c) safer residential environments;
6) The organized
system will meet State of MN and Ramsey County mandates for recycling,
reducing and re-using;
7) Access will
be available to residents as an educational tool showing the quantity of
trash they’re producing;
8) Provide
customer choices to small waste generators as well as large generators;
9) Range of size
in collection container and service options;
10)
Ability for City to further negotiate for additional services,
such as curbside bulk waste collection
11)
Management by and City costs will remain revenue neutral;
12)
Maintain ability for existing haulers to retain their current
or comparable market share; and
13)
Annual reports of tonnage, type of waste generated (e.g.
hazardous, general and recyclables), and other information as periodically
requested will be provided to assist the City in maintaining federal and
county mandates.
Member Vanderwall suggested that,
as individual Members review the first draft of the resolution prepared by
staff, individual comments should be included as addendums at the end of the
resolution for further discussion by the full Commission at their next
meeting to achieve consensus for additional items to be included in the final
resolution to be presented to the City Council.
Public Comment
Chris DeLaforest, ACE Waste
Hauler employee
Mr. DeLaforest suggested that the
Commission invite licensed haulers to address them, since issues were similar
among cities, to provide their perspective and serve as a benefit to haulers,
the Commission and residents. Mr. DeLaforest suggested that this could
provide solutions for issues without the City moving toward a full organized
collection system as part of the educational process before moving forward
according to state statute.
Member Vanderwall advised that
haulers had provided their input frequently to the Commission and the public,
as well as an attorney representing the hauler’s association had provided
their perspective and clearly articulated the position of independent
haulers.
Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting
that significant input had been received to-date from haulers; and given the
recent article in the Roseville Patch, expressed surprise that more
haulers and/or residents were not in attendance at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. DeLaforest advised that he’d
had attended the Roseville Citizen’s League meeting, and provided City of
Maplewood perceptions as well as misperceptions about the actual cost savings
for subscription garbage collection, opining that it was not a utility. Mr.
DeLaforest reviewed billing practices for published prices and more dynamic models
based on a variety of criteria; and opined that it was not accurate to imply
that some customers were not being billed consistently. Mr. DeLaforest
advised that the published rates were based on averages; and cautioned the
Commission to not base their decision on published prices, but to consider
dynamic pricing models, encouraging shoppers to be alert to cost options.
Mr. DeLaforest advised that the main goal of independent haulers was to serve
their customers well to retain that business and to capture more customers.
Mark Stoltman, Randy’s
Sanitation
Mr. Stoltman questioned if price
was the real issue for the public based on his interpretation of the MPCA
study and their review of 200 samples for their market study, based on a
number of communities and based on actual billing of MPCA employees and their
consulting firms, rather than a broad market study. Mr. Stoltman reviewed
his perceptions of the MPCA study and their sampling data; and the Hauler’s
Association paying the MPCA for a copy of the study for further examination.
Mr. Stoltman used the City of Otsego as an example of data used in the study,
and the limitations of the billing samples used and the breakdown of billing
statements, backing out taxes, yard waste and carry down service (e.g. more
rural or difficult pick-ups); and how the actual billing rates were
significantly less and caused the report to be misleading. Mr. Stoltman
further referenced interpretations and lobbying of certain Council members in
the City of Maplewood and misinformation applied and the small percentage of
bills used for their sampling. Mr. Stoltman noted that marketing rates vary
among specific areas; however, when mixed together, their blended rates are
much lower than those being reported across the board.
Dialogue among Commissioners and
Mr. Stoltman and DeLaforest ensued.
Member Vanderwall stated that it
would be helpful to have accurate information provided by haulers; and noted
that even though information had been requested by the City of Roseville’s Recycling
Coordinator Tim Pratt on numerous occasions, haulers had responded that that
information was proprietary and private based on the competitive nature of
their business. Therefore, Member Vanderwall noted that it was difficult if
not impossible to verify accuracy; and questioned the lack of transparency
from haulers in providing sufficient data upon which to base this
decision-making process, creating the need for that decision-making to be
based on information available and recognizing the variables from one person
to another. Member Vanderwall opined that a Roseville resident should pay
the same rate no matter their location in the community, and there should
be no unexplained differential in price based on the hauler’s market
variables. Member Vanderwall advised that this caused the Commission to
determine that the current billing practice was not fair and not transparent.
Mr. Stoltman questioned if this
wasn’t the basis for the free enterprise system.
Chair DeBenedet noted that this
was a consideration in the decision-making; and opined that by vendors
tacking on an “environmental fee” or “tax,” or “fuel surcharge” to trash
bills, it led customers to believe that this was a mandated cost for haulers,
when in fact it was an additional billing fee and part of doing business.
Chair DeBenedet, as a former business owner, noted that it was not his
practice to charge according to what he thought he could get away with.
Mr. Stoltman questioned the
accuracy of that interpretation, and used the Delta Airlines model as an
example; noting that when a vendor charged an environmental fee or fuel
surcharge to deliver, it facilitated operational costs for each hauler to
cover the cost of carts, parts, landfill costs to run compactors; and in most
cases were simply pass-through costs, not profits for haulers.
Member Vanderwall noted that
without businesses being forthcoming and willing to share information such as
that, it was difficult for the Commission to know the accuracy of billings
unless complaints resulted in bills being adjusted. Member Vanderwall opined
that common business practice would indicate that all of the costs were not
simply a pass-through.
Mr. Stoltman likened billing
practices and services to those choosing to shop at an up-scale grocery store
based on their services or environment or philosophy versus choosing a less
expensive grocery store; and opined that the value of a customer having that
individual choice in a grocer, trash hauler, barber or doctor was an
individual choice on their part whether it came at a higher cost or not. Mr.
Stoltman questioned if a higher cost meant that the City needed to get
involved in areas other than environmental or service delivery issues; and
further questioned whether it was this Commission’s role to dictate that
involvement.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Mr. Stoltman provided information on the scientific poll
commissioned by the Waste Hauler Association with Survey U.S.A.; and the
survey results indicating that a vast majority of citizens in Maplewood
wanted to retain the open market system and were satisfied with their current
hauler.
Chair DeBenedet expressed
interest in seeing a copy of how the survey was worded and asked Mr. Stoltman
to provide a copy to Mr. Schwartz for dissemination to the Commission.
Mr. Stoltman offered to provide
that information for Commission review; and reiterated that a lot of the rate
information requested by the Commission was proprietary and sought more specifics
of the actual data being sought.
Member Felice, using Mr.
Stoltman’s grocery store example, noted that the up-scale grocer used as an
example didn’t pretend that their prices were lower; and when she utilized
that grocer, she paid the same price consistently as every other customer
using that grocer; and prices weren’t determined on whether she was a
first-time customer or a long-time customer.
Mr. Stoltman noted that Member
Felice was still free to make that choice; however, he noted that the Commission
was not providing that same choice based on their comments to-date. Mr.
Stoltman reiterated that trash collection was not a utility, but a
free-market business, even though the Commission was attempting to make it a
utility.
Chair DeBenedet clarified that
throughout most of the country, with the exception of the State of Minnesota,
trash collection was considered a utility.
Mr. DeLaforest noted that this
was why the legislation in Minnesota was written as it was; opining that the
decision was essentially a philosophical one based on pricing.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
Commission had already listed a number of other goals beyond price.
Mr. DeLaforest noted that, while
price was certainly important, the consumer should make that decision; and
opined that other considerations and statistics, such as safety, should be
reviewed. Mr. DeLaforest provide the City of Brooklyn Park and their initial
safety concerns and ultimate decision to not pursue organized collection
after their review of police records over fifteen (15) years and no evidence
found of safety issues.
Member Vanderwall noted that many
incidents or issues may not have a formal complaint filed or documented, but
still occurred.
Member Stenlund noted the need to
recognize that, no matter their type or specifics, the fewer number of
vehicles on the roadway, the safer the environment.
Mr. DeLaforest noted that this
may be a consideration with fewer trucks creating lower statistics; however,
in weighing values he noted the need to consider impacts to family-owned
businesses.
Chair DeBenedet refocused
discussion from previously-discussed issues; and referenced the draft goals
outlined by Members. Chair DeBenedet spoke in support of a meeting between
City representatives and haulers in the future; opining that it was possible,
depending on the receptivity of haulers, that an open hauler system could be
retained while still accomplishing those goals. Chair DeBenedet noted that
it was important for all parties involved in this conversation to recognize
that negotiations go a lot further than confrontation. Chair DeBenedet
advised that his concern was one of legalities, if it came to a point for
haulers to evenly divide up the City for organized collection, and it was
found to be impossible. Chair DeBenedet noted that if it was possible for a
Roseville rate to be established consistently and across the board, Roseville
residents could then determine which haulers agreed to that level rate.
Member Stenlund further noted the
need for haulers to be upfront about the destination of trash and not use a
“bait and switch” mid-year.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
Commission was sympathetic to small business; however, he used corner grocery
stores or family-owned drug stores as an example of money talking for
consumers with the influx of large chains due to pricing and convenience.
Mr. Stoltman questioned why now
and why did the market make those choices.
Chair DeBenedet questioned if it
was the role of government to protect small business.
Mr. DeLaforest expressed his
preference for competitive family-owned businesses.
Member Vanderwall noted his
experience in coordinating transportation for the School District and the
changes in vendors, with those new vendors utilizing existing employees from
other vendors due to their familiarity with routes. Member Vanderwall
suggested that this may prove true in this instance as well.
Mr. Stoltman disagreed with
Member Vanderwall’s comments; to which Member Vanderwall responded that they
could agree to disagree; however, in a contracted environment, he remained
convinced that there would choices for those existing haulers and their
employees; with Chair DeBenedet recognizing that fewer employees may be
needed due to increased efficiencies.
Member Gjerdingen had several
questions for Mr. Stoltman and Mr. DeLaforest, including: service rate
differentials depending on location and services provided, but equitable when
averaged out and the rationale for those differences; tax issues and hauling
to different facilities or prices based on a wider geography, within a single
company and customer bases, and differences among jurisdictions; advantages
for local haulers and impacts of hauling to out-of-state landfills while
retaining the concept that it remained a local business; and how costs for
hauling to landfills was factored into cost and how much route efficiency was
taken into consideration.
Mr. Stoltman responded that tax
structures varied with communities and counties; impacts if the Newport
facility was full and the need to find another destination, especially with
soon-to-be implemented MPCA methods for processing guaranteeing that
different facilities would reach capacity; typical changes in rates and
process every two (2) years with some pre-determined, but always variable;
and integrated costs for a national company having its own facility and able
to handle more tonnage at a firm rate compared to a smaller, local hauler
having to depend on other facilities. Mr. Stoltman further responded that if
a vendor employed local residents, the money was not going out-of-state and
should still e considered local. Mr. Stoltman, in responding to costs
factored in rates advised that a customer received an introductory rate,
lower to entice business similar to a loss leader product at a retail store;
and once labor, truck operating costs, insurance, and other costs were backed
out, there wasn’t a lot of price leeway, with many instances where a hauler
was breaking even, but lower costs required to prove their service to
customers above another vendor.
Mr. Stoltman used the City of
Wayzata as an example of difficult and time-consuming routes, and pricing
accordingly, with additional labor involved in doubling back on routes to
address dead ends and cul-de-sacs in that area, as opposed to a simple street
grid that made it easier to function. Mr. Stoltman advised that these issues
were all factored into pricing structures, creating the variables.
In response, Member Vanderwall
noted that Roseville residents experienced different prices and questioned if
that was based on certain geographical situations.
Mr. Stoltman responded that he
couldn’t answer that questions; and suggested a better questions for haulers
operating in Roseville would be, if given the opportunity, they could come
back with answers, recognizing that it was a fair question. Mr. Stoltman
noted that differences in the pricing structure would be the small hauler
versus the larger hauler and variables in tipping fees. Mr. Stoltman advised
that his firm provided health, dental, 401K, and other benefits for their
employees; while needing to address ongoing overhead costs, age and type of
equipment; and that all those dynamics are pulled into the mix; requiring a
company to keep innovative with their competition.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen on when haulers could be invited to the table for further
discussion in the process, Chair DeBenedet advised that, once the City
Council received the Commission’s recommendation, they would direct staff to
develop a process, as part of the statutory requirement process.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – January 24, 2012
·
Review and potential adoption of a Resolution recommending
organized trash collection to the City Council
·
Environmentally Sustainable Presentation
·
Overview of upcoming Ramsey County projects (County Road B-2) ;
and based on the potential high cost for driveways and traffic controls for
those projects,
·
Review of the City’s current Assessment Policies for non-residential
properties
·
Prioritization list for Parks Master Plan Implementation
Future Meetings
·
Joint meeting of the PWET and Parks and Recreation Commissions
·
Pro-active creation of resources or incentives for new
businesses to adopt environmental-friendly development methods (e.g. parking
lots being more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly) as supported by Roseville
resident preferences (Felice)
Member Stenlund suggested a
presentation by EOR Consulting Engineers or another firm regarding minimum
impact design standards currently available as a preliminary presentation;
and alternatives available in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual showing options
in addressing waters, both hidden infrastructure and above-ground amenities;
and suggested Randy Neprash as another resource as well. Member Stenlund
opined that it was all about money, and if the City wanted to encourage
developers, they would need to provide incentives.
Member Felice noted the strong
interest of Roseville residents, supporting the City’s strong encouragement
for those alternatives.
Chair DeBenedet noted that
beyond the support of Roseville residents for those environmentally-friendly
options, some would become virtual necessities based on enhances stormwater
management rules.
Member Gjerdingen suggested that
discussion could include environmental efforts based on different kinds of
development.
·
Chair DeBenedet suggested future conversation with MnDOT to
address the “No Right Turn on Red” on Snelling Avenue for eastbound traffic
onto County Road C and southbound traffic onto Snelling Avenue. Chair
DeBenedet advised that he frequently observes people not stopping and turning
without paying attention to signage, especially since MnDOT closed the James
Addition access.
·
Chair DeBenedet noted future requirements for street signs and
their reflectivity, based on recent communication with staff; and suggested a
capstone presentation from staff on how they proposed to manage that
·
Chair DeBenedet suggested future consideration of any and all
city-owned lights being switched to LED based on their cost-savings in using
less electricity; and noted obvious changes in the Rosedale Parking lot in
using LED lights.
·
Member Gjerdingen suggested further discussion on requiring
businesses to plow sidewalks based on potential revision of current
ordinance language to provide enforcement methods as an incentive for
Roseville businesses to comply.
Member Stenlund noted that this
would be implementation of a city-wide snow management policy.
Chair DeBenedet asked that
individual members check current ordinance on line.
7.
Adjourn
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:38 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|