Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 19-67    Version:
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 11/13/2019
Title: Amending section 220.05 of the Legislative Code to set rates for base level garbage service to be effective January 1, 2020.
Sponsors: Amy Brendmoen
Attachments: 1. SP Hauler Background Documents to City Pub Hrg 1911061, 2. Memorandum to DM Tincher re 2020 Trash Rate Communications, 3. Documentation of Communication with SPH re 2020 Rates, 4. Update on 2020 Garbage Negotiations with Haulers, 5. Online comment re Ord 19-67
Title
Amending section 220.05 of the Legislative Code to set rates for base level garbage service to be effective January 1, 2020.

Body

SECTION 1

WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul has a Residential Coordinated Trash Collection program; and

WHEREAS, the City has a contract with the Consortium to collect garbage in the City; the Consortium is a limited liability company, comprised of members which are residential solid waste collectors licensed to do business in the City; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the contract, the City set rates for base level garbage service that were effective beginning on October 1, 2018.

WHEREAS, section three (3) of the contract provides that the rates for Trash Collection Costs and Disposal Costs shall be adjusted annually; the contract requires the City Council to approve any required price adjustments; and

WHEREAS, section 3.1.3 of the contract provides that the nonfuel portion of the Trash Collection Costs shall be subject to an increase equal to the increase of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the Midwest Region - All Items Less Energy (CPI-U) for the previous twelve-month period; this is a required price adjustment; and

WHEREAS, according to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percent change in the CPI-U for the period of August 2018 to August 2019 was 2.0 percent; and

WHEREAS, section 3.1.5 of the contract provides that the Disposal Cost shall be adjusted annually based on the changes to the hauler ‘net contracted rate’ for disposal costs at the trash disposal facility and the actual average tonnages collected in the prior 12 months; this is a required price adjustment; and

WHEREAS, the ‘net contracted rate’ for disposal costs at the trash disposal facility was increased to $82 per ton; the actual average tonnage collected in the prior 12 months was 56,768.67 tons; and

WHEREAS, the contract does not contain any other required price adjustments that effect the 2020 base l...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
11/13/2019 10:49 AMEric Lein Against Forcing unwilling customers to pay private trash haulers for unnecessary empty trash carts does NOT align with the rate-setting requirements set forth in MN Stat Chapter 443. Michael Kuchta's method (Steps 1,2,3,4,5,6) will come closer to complying with (1) MN Statute 443.29: "The rates for rubbish disposal shall be a charge against the premises from which rubbish is collected..." AND (2) MN Stat 443.28: "...Such rates shall be as nearly as possible just and reasonable, taking into account the character, kind, and quality of service, of rubbish and method of disposition, the number of people served at each place of collection, and all other factors that enter into cost of service..." +2
11/13/2019 10:27 AMEric Lein Against I am AGAINST the price structure proposed in ORD 19-67 as of 11/06/2019. Although not perfect, PLEASE GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION to the ideas submitted on this web page by MICHAEL KUCHTA (Parts 1,2,3,4,5,6). >>> "This proposal relies on the same principle we use in the everyday world when we ask for separate checks at a restaurant: Everyone pays for what they individually consume. With trash, low-use households generate only one-fifth as much as high-use households, so they should pay one-fifth the cost. Simple. Further, the fair share proposal encourages households to reduce waste because it significantly reduces their individual costs when they do. This approach is common sense, fair, easy to understand, and easy to implement." //// "This approach meets the contractual requirement that costs be 'based on ... the actual average tonnages collected per gallon per household in the prior 12 months.'” //// "The rates still generate $24,588,636 in revenue." +2
11/10/2019 1:32 AMRon Quido   Accept the haulers' offer to continue with the current rates for six months. The haulers' lawyer was obviously signalling that the consortium will legally challenge the City's adoption of this ordinance's proposed rates. Most voters approve of the current system so why drag this issue out now?
11/9/2019 8:10 AMSharon4Anderson   To: Young, Susan (CI-StPaul) Cc: dschleck@messerlikramer.com; Tierney, Rachel (CI-StPaul) ; Swanson, Christopher (CI-StPaul) Subject: Confirmation of Phone Call Think Before You Click: This email originated outside our organization. Susan, I wanted to send you an email confirming the information you shared with me this morning as our connection was poor. You mentioned that you gave Jim from the Star Tribune my phone number as it is Public Record and that he will be calling me as I am the Chief Manager of the Consortium. The reason the Star Tribune is calling the Consortium is to inquire and gather information as to the contribution to the YES movement. This inquiry was directed to Messerli/Kramer, Counsel for the Consortium for contributing $1,000.00 and Republic Services, a Consortium Member contributing $28,000.00. You mentioned also that the Star Tribune called Republic Services and R
11/9/2019 7:52 AMSharonScarrellaAnderson Against Affiant outrage that apparantly Republic Trash contributed $28,000.00 Lawyer Dan Schxxx $1,000 to the Yes Vote, further Citys Amended Contract without Negotitaions with Haulers,Counsel Lawyer Rachael Tierney sat Silenced, Sharon has Standing Forensic Files also at http://sharonsfreedomlawschool.blogspot.com City is NOT Math Accurate.or Consumer Protections -1
11/6/2019 3:28 PMMichael Kuchta Against Part 6: This approach meets the contractual requirement that costs be “based on ... the actual average tonnages collected per gallon per household in the prior 12 months.” If you divide those results by the total households in each service level, you get more equitable individual pricing, yet the rates still generate $24,588,636 in revenue. Here’s what every level would pay under this fair share proposal: • 35-gallon cart, every other week: $7.97 per month / $95.65 per year • 35-gallon cart, weekly: $15.94 / $191.31 • 65-gallon cart, weekly: $29.61 / $355.28 • 95-gallon cart, weekly: $43.27 / $519.26 If you compare these costs with current, 2019 rates, every service level gets a price cut except the highest users. The differences: • 35-gallon cart, every other week: Price cut of $147.71 per year / $12.31 per month • 35-gallon cart, weekly: Price cut of $89.97 / $7.50 • 65-gallon cart, weekly: Price cut of $28.96 / $2.41 • 95-gallon cart, weekly: Price increase of $109.46 / $9.12 +2
11/6/2019 3:27 PMMichael Kuchta Against Part 5: Step Four: Because we know how many households are in each service level, and the rates that Ordinance 19-67 sets for each level, we can calculate how much revenue coordinated collection needs to generate from monthly fees. The total: $24,588,636. Step Five: Combining all this information, we now know enough to overhaul rates so each level of service pays its fair share. As we saw in Step Three, the highest-use households -- those with a 95-gallon cart -- generate 42.5% of the total annual trash. So, they should contribute 42.5% of the cost. (Under Ordinance 19-67, high-use households actually would pay only 32.5% of the costs. This locks in the current imbalance that forces low-use households to continue subsidizing high-use households.) To make sure households pay based on their usage, we multiply the revenue the city needs ($24.6 million) by the percentage of trash each level generates. +2
11/6/2019 3:26 PMMichael Kuchta Against Part 4: Step Two: The city also knows how many households subscribe to which level of service: • 35-gallon cart emptied every other week: 5,074 • 35-gallon cart emptied weekly: 17,606 • 65-gallon cart emptied weekly: 28,912 • 95-gallon cart emptied weekly: 20,150 With this information, we can get a rough idea of how much total trash households generate at each level. For example, at the 95-gallon level, we multiply 20,150 households by an annual capacity of 4,940 gallons (52 weeks, 95 gallons each week). The math shows these households have the capacity to generate 99,541,000 gallons of trash a year. Combined, all 71,742 households generate nearly 234 million gallons of trash a year. Step Three: With those numbers, we can calculate what percentage of trash each level of service has the capacity to generate: • 35-gallon cart, every other week: 2% • 35-gallon cart, weekly: 13.7% • 65-gallon cart, weekly: 41.8% • 95-gallon cart, weekly: 42.5% +2
11/6/2019 3:25 PMMichael Kuchta Against Part 3: The fair share proposal outlined below makes real change. Based on real-world data (as required by the contract), this proposal cuts rates by 60 percent for the lowest users, while raising rates by about $9 a month for the highest users. This proposal relies on the same principle we use in the everyday world when we ask for separate checks at a restaurant: Everyone pays for what they individually consume. With trash, low-use households generate only one-fifth as much as high-use households, so they should pay one-fifth the cost. Simple. Further, the fair share proposal encourages households to reduce waste because it significantly reduces their individual costs when they do. This approach is common sense, fair, easy to understand, and easy to implement. It’s five easy steps. Step One: Start with the basics. The city has four levels of residential trash service. Based on cart size and how often trash is picked up, we know the volume of trash that each level of service generates +2
11/6/2019 3:24 PMMichael Kuchta Against Part 2: This presents a great opportunity for the Council to overhaul pricing, to be responsive to city residents, to cut trash fees for more than 70 percent of households, to allow households to pay their fair share based on how much trash they actually generate, and still produce the revenue needed to support coordinated collection. Unfortunately, Ordinance 19-67, as written, does not do that. The current draft is a lost opportunity. It makes only incremental changes, reducing rates across the board by about $1 a month. That approach perpetuates the perverse incentives and inequities that now exist. I do not profess to understand all the intricacies of the 52-page contract. But it seems the language in Section 3.1.5 allows the city much more discretion in how it adjusts rates than the approach being taken in Ordinance 19-67. Even the haulers consortium, in a letter to the city dated Sept. 30, says “pricing under the OTC contract is not strictly formulaic.” +2
11/6/2019 3:24 PMMichael Kuchta Against Part 1: I will be working the evening of Nov. 6 and unable to attend the public hearing in person to testify on the 2020 trash rates proposed in Ordinance 19-67. But I’d encourage you to modify the ordinance, relying on the approach described below. During the public debate leading to the Nov. 5 referendum, there was one thing people on the “yes” and “no” sides both seemed to agree on: The contract could be better. One of the most common criticisms? Pricing. Current pricing encourages waste instead of encouraging waste reduction. Under current prices, households that generate the least trash subsidize households that generate the most trash. As you know, the contract with haulers does allow price adjustments every year. In fact, some would say the contract mandates adjustments. +3
10/21/2019 11:09 AMSharonAndersonakaScarrella Against DFL Mob Rule Issue Trash having own Haulers is Similar to Having your own Doctor http://freedom-4you.blogspot.com Major Anti Trust Isues Taxes MN Const.Art.X Levied Equitably
10/20/2019 3:10 AMCandidateSharonAnderson Against Just What are you amyB are you amending If it aint broke don't fix or amend.Sec. 220.05. - Base level service and additional service options. What Public Improvements?
10/17/2019 6:51 PMCandidateSharonAnderson Against Please read http://sharons-fraudupdate.blogspot.com Forensic Files http://sharon4anderson.org Violation of Charter,Ballot Vote No now Rate Setting Ponzi Taxing Scheme
10/17/2019 10:24 AMCandidateSharonAnderson Against For years Council has set Rates for NonProfit District Heating, now setting Rates for Trash a for Profit Business creates Contract Impairment, contrary to Private Citizens to do Business http://taxthemax.blogspot.com therefore creating a Monoply,AntiTrust