Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 18-40    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 8/8/2018
Title: Amending Chapter 357 of the Legislative Code to regulate coordinated collection.
Sponsors: Amy Brendmoen
Attachments: 1. Misc. comments for July 18 meeting from website, 2. Online comment re Coordinated Collection, 3. Comment rec'd by Council re Coordinated Trash Collection
Related files: RES 18-1760
Amending Chapter 357 of the Legislative Code to regulate coordinated collection.

Chapter 357 of the Saint Paul Legislative code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 357.01. - License required; exceptions.
(a) License required. No person shall collect, transport, transfer, treat, handle, salvage, utilize, compact, shred, compost, mill, bale, process or dispose of, or any combination thereof, any mixed municipal solid waste, construction debris, compostable materials or recyclable materials in Saint Paul without a license issued pursuant to the provisions contained in this chapter.
(b) Exceptions. This licensing provision shall not apply to governmental agencies engaged in such activities. Persons who transport, transfer, compact, shred, compost or bale in connection with their own separated recyclable materials and yard waste generated at premises owned or occupied by them are exempt. Persons engaged in recycling activities and licensed under Chapter 408, motor vehicle salvage dealers under Chapter 422 or scrap and metal processors under Chapter 420, or which are hereafter licensed under any other provisions of the Legislative Code regulating recycling activities, are exempt from the license requirements contained in this chapter.
Section 357.02. - Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated in this section:

Authorized recycling program is a program for the collection and processing of recyclable materials which is instituted, sponsored, authorized or controlled by the City of Saint Paul.

Authorized Coordinated Collection Program is a program for the collection and processing of mixed municipal solid waste, yard waste and other items included by the City for residential properties that consist of one, two, three or four dwelling units which is instituted, sponsored, authorized or controlled by the City of S...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
10/17/2018 4:46 PMWard Nichols Against My bill is now higher - shouldn't it be lower with coordinated collection? I'm being charged for two carts when my wife and I only need/want one. Calls to my city council member, the mayor's office, public works and my new hauler have not resolved my issues. +6 -2 2
10/16/2018 11:54 PMBruce Becker Against I am vehemently opposed to this for several reasons. +6 -1 1
10/16/2018 5:46 AMJeanne Ross Against I wish to register my opposition to the Saint Paul City Council’s imposition of their will on the citizens and constituents of the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota. I am not in favor of government management of trash collection businesses. In addition, I am strongly opposed to a city single payer approach. +5 -2 2
9/30/2018 10:30 AMEric Lein (yet again) Against Petitions (with 5,800+ signatures) for a referendum on ORD 18-40 were delivered on September 27th. The City's response? "The contract with haulers is valid; the garbage program will roll with or without citizens' support." ----- Minnesota's Senator Amy Klobuchar was not talking, on September 28, 2018, about the organized collection of our household trash. Her underlying message can, however, be applied to local policy-makers. Senator Klobuchar's closing words to the Senate Judiciary Committee ring all too true in Washington, DC, and in St. Paul, MN: "Right now, the way this process is run, we're not running it like We the people. It's being run like We the ruling party." [ ] +5 -2 2
9/29/2018 6:45 PMShawn d Against My garbage bill has doubled for the same service!! You lied to the people and are forcing us to pay a private company. It's disgusting. +8 -2 1
9/28/2018 6:56 PMAndrew Usher Against I do not appreciate a municipal government who maintains an ordinance of this nature that is supported by my tax money (of which has gone up by 38% in 2 years) without my ability to consent to such an application. I believe in a capitalist system that allows me to choose the following: level of services, preferred service provider, ability to shop the market for competitive rates, ability to shop for a provider based on service/quality. We really liked our previous provider and the customer service they provided. What is the incentive for this conglomerate to provide the same quality of service with a monopoly? The city of Saint Paul as a government and council have no right to speak for the "betterment" of the city with so many residents uniquely opposed to the ordinance. It is my belief, as is that of 5,000+ others that this should be a vote dedicated to those who will be most impacted, the people. If the council fails to listen to its constituents, we will surely vote them out too. +7 -1 1
9/27/2018 7:33 PMScott Jensen Against I am the president of the St. Anthony Greens Townhomes homeowner ***ociation, a 40-unit townhome development at the corner of Territorial Road and Seal Street in South St. Anthony Park. Our development was built in 1983 and consists of four 6-unit blocks and four 4-unit blocks, and was designed for common dumpster use. We have always had dumpster service, paid for in our monthly ***essments. Under this ordinance, the city is compelling our 16 units in 4-unit blocks into its trash hauling scheme, while excluding the remaining 24 units in 6-unit blocks. This severely undermines our ***ociation's ability and responsibility to provide equitable, efficient, and economical service to all our homeowners. Under this ordinance, the aggregate expense for just those 16 units nearly doubles what we currently pay for the whole ***ociation, and we will still need to arrange trash removal for the remainder of our homeowners. If this plan was intended to be efficient and equitable, it fails miserably. +6 -1 2
9/5/2018 6:09 AMEric Lein (again) Against The overall cost of city-wide organized collection should be cheaper, NOT more expensive. But, the total price to be paid by consumers is up, not down. After looking at data collected and distributed by St. Paul’s Department of Public Works, one local analyst (John Genereux) calculates that approximately 73,000 affected St. Paul households will be forced to pay an excess cost of about $11.6 million per year (or more), for a total of $58 million (or more) during the city’s five-year garbage contract. Instead of benefiting from touted savings (via energy and efficiency of geography), consumers city-wide will pay MILLIONS of DOLLARS more each year. To more than a few voters, this is way beyond "frustrating." +6 -2 2
8/6/2018 6:18 PMNora Fitzpatrick Against I am concerned and frustrated over the new requirement that each household within a 2-4 family building have a separate garbage can. We are a duplex and our family lives in both units, no tenants. Due to efforts to compost and recycle, we never fill our bin. We DO NOT NEED two bins. I was truly excited by the prospect of centralized garbage pickup and supported it . I never heard about this specific requirement and object to the lack of transparency on this very important point. Our costs of garbage pickup will increase significantly. The trucks will double their work and with two recycling bins and two garbage bins, there is the very real potential of alley obstructions because of the increased clutter. Please consider the negative impact this will have on the neighborhood and vote NO. +5 -1 2
8/6/2018 3:55 PMDrew Pederson Against The City Wide Trash Collection effort is garbage -- pun intended. If this is to be so much more efficient by having less trucks, less overlapping routes, etc -- then how come my bill is doubling? I can tell you why -- the requirement to have each dwelling unit have their own bin is absurd. It encourages more waste, both physical garbage and money being ransacked from residents. Get rid of the bin per dwelling requirement at minimum. Ideally, get rid of the whole organized collection and go back to private collection. +7 -1 2
8/2/2018 10:33 PMLinda Barnett Against I am against the citywide trash program that will not let homeowners share trash collection. My neighbors and I recycle and organics recycle and we have very little trash each week, sometimes nothing in a week. No one should be forced to have trash collection, the cost is also outrageous and you need to change this plan. +5 -1 1
8/1/2018 7:37 PMKate Leisses Against I am concerned and frustrated over the new requirement that each household within a 2-4 family building have a separate garbage can. We are a triplex and have been served by a single 95 gallon can for the past 20 years. I was truly excited by the prospect of centralized garbage pickup and supported it publicly in the neighborhood. At no time did I hear about this specific requirement and worry about the lack of transparency on this very important decision. Our costs of garbage pickup with nearly triple – from $30 per month to $75 per month. Unfortunately, we can’t absorb this monthly increase and will have to p*** it on to our tenants. That’s a $25 per month / $300 per year increase for each tenant. The trucks will triple their work and the duration at the garbage station and there is the very real potential of alley obstructions because of the increased clutter. Please reconsider the negative financial impact this will have on the neighborhood residents. +5 -1 2
7/30/2018 8:12 PMMary Erjavec Against Dear City Councilperson, I am opposed to the contract that you have made with the trash haulers for the new city trash hauling plan. I am close to being zero-waste, currently average one grocery-size bag of trash monthly( 8 gallons)—usually under 10 lbs/month. I reduce, reuse, recycle, donate and compost. All of the things we’ve been encouraged to do. Your plan, for every-other week will have a net cost of $22.33. : 70 gallons @ $.32/ gallon. ( my cost about $2.78 per gallon for what I discard in trash) I currently take my trash to the transfer station every several months and pay $4.00. Additionally, the costs are appallingly regressive. EOW 35 gallon $ .32/ gallon/mo (NB, truck needs 2 fewer stops each month) Weekly 35 gallon $ .18/ gallon/mo Weekly 65 gallon $ .13/ gallon/mo Weekly 95 gallons $ .095/ gallon/mo I have heard the argument about much of the cost being for the stop. Obviously that argument is based on false reasoning—the greatest costs to the hauler are +9 -2 2
7/27/2018 10:54 PMAlisa Lein Against Please vote NO on this ordinance. Not allowing multifamily units to share a cart(s) is unreasonable. No allowing residents who actively work to lower waste pay more per gallon to dispose of their waste is unreasonable. No allowing zero waste residents to opt out of a monthly trash bill is unreasonable. Many fine details were missed in the 5 year contract between the City and the Haulers. Please vote no on this ordinance and re-negotiate a better contract for all stakeholders. Have the organized trash program be a successful and positive rollout for St. Paul, not a "let's roll it out and fix all of the problems later". The huge increases to many landlords for the same level of trash service today WILL result in rent raises to tenants and the goal of the city to provide more affordable housing gets ****her and ****her away from being able to happen. Do not punish tenants with this unnecessary rent raise. Allow multifamily to SHARE trash carts! +11 -2 2
7/27/2018 1:44 PMDaniel Brown Against This City of Saint Paul Ordinance will dramatically increase garbage collection costs for multi-family dwellings (rentals and condominiums). I have lived in my duplex for 25 years and have managed very well with one large garbage can that I share with my tenants, an arrangement that has worked very well. This ordinance will now require me to have two cans, effectively doubling the cost of garbage collection. This ordinance will also litter our alleyways with unneeded garbage cans, drive up rental rates across the city and force thousands of St. Paul residents to pay for garbage cans they do not need or want. This new cost, plus the per-can property tax ***essment, come on top of several years of significant property tax increases. This ordinance is a big mistake. +7 -1 2
7/12/2018 10:09 PMEric Lein Against REGARDING "Skyrocketing Rents" --- Please note that St. Paul's new "NO SHARING" trash contract (negotiated with almost zero public transparency and little or no opportunity for public input) will raise rents by $15 to $20 PER MONTH per apartment for more than a few tenants in 2-, 3-, and 4-unit buildings. This time, it is NOT the landlords' fault. Local politicians, bureaucrats and little-guy trash haulers are 100-percent responsible for mandating this unreasonable increase. PLEASE DO NOT ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. PLEASE ALLOW "SHARING" OF CARTS AND GIVE SIGNIFICANT CREDIT FOR "ZERO WASTERS" WHO GENERATE LITTLE OR NO TRASH. +10 -1 1