Details Meeting Name: City Council Agenda status: Final-revised Meeting date/time: 7/25/2018 3:30 PM Minutes status: Final   Meeting location: Council Chambers - 3rd Floor Published agenda: Agenda Published minutes: Minutes   Meeting video: Video   Attachments: Meeting Items (51) Public Comments (54) 51 records Group Clear sorting Clear grouping Group by Type Group by Result Export Export to Excel Export to PDF Export to Word Show: Legislation only Legislation only All agenda items File # Ver. Agenda # Type Title Action Result Action Details Video AO 18-38 1 1 Administrative Order Amending the 2018 spending budget for the Office of Financial Services. Received and Filed   Action details Not available AO 18-39 1 2 Administrative Order Authorizing the Police Department to reallocate its 2018 General Fund operating budget to more accurately record expenditures. Received and Filed   Action details Not available RES 18-1210 1 3 Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Agreement for the 2018 Wage and Fringe Adjustment between the City of Saint Paul and the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local Union 1 Minnesota/North Dakota. Laid Over Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1211 1 4 Resolution Amending Civil Service Rule 7 to extend the Firefighter eligible list. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1213 1 5 Resolution Changing the rate of pay for two classifications, Park Security Officer and Park Security Officer Lead, in EG 12, Operating Engineers Salary Schedule. Laid Over Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1143 1 6 Resolution Approving additional FY2018 Neighborhood Sales Tax Revitalization (STAR) loan and grant program awards. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1151 1 7 Resolution Authorizing the Police Department to accept grants from the Saint Paul Police Foundation for training equipment and supplies. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1186 1 8 Resolution Authorizing the Police Department to accept a donation of vests and helmets from Shield 616. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-887 2 9 Resolution Amending the financing and spending plans in the Capital Projects fund of the Department of Public Works for transfer of appropriations funds in the amount of $749,539 to the 2018 Safe Routes to School Expo Project. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-991 1 10 Resolution Approving the application with conditions, per the Deputy Legislative Hearing Officer, for Stone Saloon SBC (License ID #20170000652), d/b/a Waldmann, to add a Liquor Outdoor Service Area (Patio) license to the existing Malt On Sale (Brewery Taproom), Liquor On Sale (Sunday), Entertainment (A), and Malt Off Sale (Brewery) licenses at 445 Smith Avenue North. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1161 1 11 Resolution Approving the application with conditions, per the Deputy Legislative Hearing Officer, for Black Hart of Saint Paul LLC (License ID # 21080001270), d/b/a The Black Hart of Saint Paul, for Liquor On Sale - 101-180 Seats, Liquor On Sale - Sunday, Liquor On Sale - 2 AM Closing, Liquor Outdoor Service Area (Sidewalk), Entertainment (B), Gambling Location, and Cigarette/Tobacco licenses at 1415 University Avenue West. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1217 1 12 Resolution Approving adverse action against the Cigarette/Tobacco license held by Family Dollar, Inc., d/b/a Family Dollar Store (License ID #20030004635) at 1536 University Avenue West. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1218 1 13 Resolution Approving adverse action against the Cigarette/Tobacco license held by Ahmed A. Mohamed, d/b/a Tom & Joe’s Market (License ID #20160002664) at 684 Western Avenue North. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1219 1 14 Resolution Sustaining adverse action against the Auto Repair Garage, Second Hand Dealer, Second Hand Dealer-Motor Vehicle, Tow Truck/Wrecker (Operator), and Tow Truck/Wrecker (Vehicle) licenses held by Budget Towing Inc. of St. Paul, d/b/a Budget Towing, Inc. of St. Paul at 560 Randolph Avenue. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1226 1 15 Resolution Honoring Patricia Lilledahl for her eighteen years of service to the City of Saint Paul and the Department of Planning and Economic Development. Adopted Pass Action details Video RES 18-1239 1 16 Resolution Proclaiming Saturday, July 28, 2018 as Xe Xiong Day in the City of St. Paul. Adopted Pass Action details Video RES 18-1242 1 17 Resolution Honoring the life and contributions of Saint Paul historian and political activist Rhoda R. Gilman. Adopted Pass Action details Video SR 18-95 1 18 Staff Report Presentation by League of Minnesota Cities Executive Director David Unmacht. Received and Filed   Action details Video RLH TA 18-219 3 19 Resolution LH Tax Assessment Appeal Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 783 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. J1810A, Assessment No. 188519; amended to File No. J1810A1, Assessment No. 188552) (Public hearing held June 27 and July 11) Adopted As Amended Pass Action details Video RES PH 18-172 4 20 Resolution-Public Hearing Updating and simplifying the Residential Permit Parking Program. Adopted As Amended Pass Action details Not available Ord 18-20 4 21 Ordinance Amending Chapter 164 of the Legislative Code pertaining to residential permit parking. Adopted As Amended Pass Action details Video Ord 18-29 2 22 Ordinance Granting the application of Chong Vang to rezone the property at 494 Farrington Street and 308-310 Sherburne, from RT1 Two-Family Residential to T2 Traditional Neighborhood, and amending Chapter 60 of the Legislative Code pertaining to the zoning map. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-30 1 23 Ordinance Amending Chapter 64 of the Legislative Code pertaining to signs. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-32 1 24 Ordinance Granting the application of Daniel O'Gara et al to rezone property at 164 Snelling Avenue and 1551-1559 Hague Avenue from RT1 two-family and T2 traditional neighborhood to T3 traditional neighborhood, and amending Chapter 60 of the Legislative Code pertaining to the zoning map. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-37 1 25 Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the Legislative Code to reflect changes necessary for coordinated trash collection. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-38 1 26 Ordinance Amending Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code to include collection of delinquent coordinated trash collection accounts. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-39 1 27 Ordinance Creating Chapter 220 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code regulating coordinated collection of certain residential trash. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-40 1 28 Ordinance Amending Chapter 357 of the Legislative Code to regulate coordinated collection. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-41 1 29 Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the Legislative Code to clarify authority to issue citations. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-42 1 30 Ordinance Creating Chapter 48 of the Legislative Code requiring property owners to provide voter registration information to tenants. Laid Over to Third Reading/Public Hearing   Action details Video Ord 18-33 1 31 Ordinance Amending Chapter 74 of the Legislative Code by enacting a new section designating Fire Station No. 10 as a Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Site. Laid Over to Second Reading   Action details Video RES PH 18-161 1 32 Resolution-Public Hearing Amending the financing and spending plan in the Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $25,000 for STAR Grant funds received for the Sepak Takraw Court project at Duluth and Case Recreation Center. Adopted Pass Action details Video RES PH 18-160 1 33 Resolution-Public Hearing Amending the financing and spending plan in the Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $1,432,512 to reflect funds from the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Solicitation Process, Transportation Advisory Board, for rehabilitation of Indian Mounds Regional Park Trail; and authorizing execution of a grant agreement, which may include an indemnification clause. Adopted Pass Action details Video RES PH 18-200 1 34 Resolution-Public Hearing Amending the financing and spending plans in the Police Department in the amount of $147,805 for the 2018 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development grant. Adopted Pass Action details Video RLH RR 18-25 2 36 Resolution LH Substantial Abatement Order Ordering the razing and removal of the structures at 302-304 COMO AVENUE within five (5) days after the July 25, 2018 City Council public hearing. Adopted Pass Action details Video RLH TA 18-428 1 47 Resolution LH Tax Assessment Appeal Amending Council Files No. RLH AR 18-5 to Ratify and Spread Payments for the assessment for Collection of Vacant Building Registration Fees billed during June 7 to September 21, 2017 at 1119 RAYMOND AVENUE #2. (File No. VB1805, Assessment No. 188804) Adopted Pass Action details Video RLH VO 18-27 2 35 Resolution LH Vacate Order Appeal of Charlnitta Ellis to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 801 AURORA AVENUE. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH RR 18-26 2 37 Resolution LH Substantial Abatement Order Ordering the razing and removal of the structures at 929 CONWAY STREET within fifteen (15) days after the July 25, 2018 City Council public hearing. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH FCO 18-96 2 38 Resolution LH Fire C of O OR Correction Order Appeal of Carlton Linton to a Fire Certificate of Occupancy Approval With Corrections at 991 GALTIER STREET. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH FCO 18-97 2 39 Resolution LH Fire C of O OR Correction Order Appeal of Troy Verville to a Fire Safety Inspection Appointment at 859 IVY AVENUE EAST. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH VBR 18-38 2 40 Resolution LH Vacant Building Registration Appeal of Joe Osterbauer to a Vacant Building Registration Fee at 565 JEFFERSON AVENUE. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH VBR 18-35 2 41 Resolution LH Vacant Building Registration Appeal of Sam Riesgraf to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at 778 JENKS AVENUE. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH FCO 18-93 2 42 Resolution LH Fire C of O OR Correction Order Appeal of Ogbonna Iwu to a Correction Order Fire Certificate of Occupancy at 1024 JESSIE STREET. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH SAO 18-43 2 43 Resolution LH Summary Abatement Order Appeal of Deanna Dorf to a Summary Abatement Order at 2101 KNAPP STREET. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH TA 18-161 3 44 Resolution LH Tax Assessment Appeal Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 95 LITCHFIELD STREET. (File No. J1807B, Assessment No. 188108; amended to File No. J1807B1, Assessment No. 188113) (Amended to delete the assessment) Adopted As Amended Pass Action details Not available RLH FCO 18-63 3 45 Resolution LH Fire C of O OR Correction Order Appeal of Steven Fuller to a Correction Notice - Complaint Inspection at 1694 MARGARET STREET. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH OA 18-3 2 46 Resolution LH Other Appeal Type Appeal of Thomas Youngren to a letter dated June 6, 2018 from the Department of Safety and Inspections regarding issuance of a fence permit with a variance at 60 ORME COURT. (Address corrected to 2355 EDGCUMBE ROAD) Continue Public Hearing   Action details Not available RLH RR 18-27 2 48 Resolution LH Substantial Abatement Order Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 694 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH within fifteen (15) days after the July 25, 2018 City Council public hearing. (Amended to grant to December 6, 2018) Adopted As Amended   Action details Not available RLH FCO 18-99 2 49 Resolution LH Fire C of O OR Correction Order Appeal of Roxann & Cameron Christian to a Fire Certificate of Occupancy Approval With Corrections at 2318 STANDISH STREET. Adopted Pass Action details Not available RLH TA 18-415 1 50 Resolution LH Tax Assessment Appeal Amending Council File RLH AR 18-33 to delete the assessment for Graffiti Removal services during January 3 to 27, 2018 at 291 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. (File No. J1806P, Assessment No. 188406) Adopted Pass Action details Not available RES 18-1285 1   Resolution Authorizing the Department of Planning and Economic Development to apply to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for a redevelopment grant for the Northwest Corner of University and Dale, and the Berry Convertible Street projects. Adopted Pass Action details Not available  Add New Comment 54 records Group Clear sorting Clear grouping Group by File # Group by Name Group by District Group by Opinion Export Export to Excel Export to PDF Export to Word File # Date  Name District Opinion Comment Action Ord 18-40 10/17/2018 4:46 PM Ward 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 Ord 18-39 10/17/2018 7:38 AM Eric Lein (yet again)   Against Petitions (with 6,458+ signatures) for a referendum on ORD 18-39 were delivered on October 16th. For months the City's response has been: "The contract with haulers is valid; the garbage program will roll with or without citizens' support." I hope the City's prevailing message changes ----- 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." [ www.c-span.org/video/?c4752389/sen-klobuchar-statement ] +5 -3 3 Ord 18-40 10/16/2018 11:54 PM Bruce Becker   Against I am vehemently opposed to this for several reasons. +6 -1 1 Ord 18-40 10/16/2018 5:46 AM Jeanne 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 Ord 18-40 9/30/2018 10:30 AM Eric 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." [ www.c-span.org/video/?c4752389/sen-klobuchar-statement ] +5 -2 2 Ord 18-40 9/29/2018 6:45 PM Shawn 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 Ord 18-39 9/29/2018 6:43 PM Shawn 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. +7 -3 2 Ord 18-38 9/29/2018 6:41 PM Shawn 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. +1 -1 2 Ord 18-37 9/29/2018 6:40 PM Shawn 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. +2 -2 1 Ord 18-39 9/28/2018 9:22 PM Molly Schuneman   Against I am against the way the garbage collection service is beginning. Today, 9-28 I received a bill for my new service which starts the billing as of 9-20-18 although my service will not start until Oct 4th. I am curious as to how they can bill for service not provided. I contacted the hauler, no answer, no return call, I called the AG office and was told to call the city council. I contacted the city and was told that all billing starts 9-21 even though service will not have begun yet. When questioned I was told to call hauler. Its a game with my money. +5 -2 3 Ord 18-40 9/28/2018 6:56 PM Andrew 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 Ord 18-39 9/28/2018 6:51 PM Andrew 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 -3 3 Ord 18-40 9/27/2018 7:33 PM Scott 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 Ord 18-38 9/5/2018 6:12 AM Eric 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." +2 -2 1 Ord 18-37 9/5/2018 6:11 AM Eric 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." +2 -2 1 Ord 18-37 9/5/2018 6:11 AM Eric Lein (again)   Against +1 -1 2 Ord 18-40 9/5/2018 6:09 AM Eric 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 Ord 18-39 9/5/2018 6:04 AM Eric 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 -3 2 Ord 18-38 9/5/2018 3:40 AM Mary Bollman   Against I am against this plan because there is no Opt-Out. My husband and I have a small bungalow in St. Paul that we use as our "Urban cabin" when we visit our adult children. Any garbage generated there is taken HOME with us to our home in Southern Minnesota. Just create an option for people who spend a limited time in the city! So easy!! +1 -1 1 Ord 18-39 8/29/2018 2:42 AM Gerald   Against "the leanest service option costs $9.36 per collection, or 27 cents per gallon, while the 95-gallon cart costs $7.88 per collection, or 8 cents per gallon." I'd quit recycling to get my money's worth of my 35 gallon every other week service but then you will increase the property tax ***essment for recycling due to lower volume. Please don't force us to subsidize the "wasters" by adopting this unfair pricing structure. +4 -2 3 Ord 18-39 8/13/2018 8:25 PM Jon Gibney   Against I've been against this whole plan ever since I heard it was being considered. I don't find any of the purported benefits of a centralized system to be at all compelling, and I am very happy with my current trash pickup service. W-3 P-12 +5 -3 2 Ord 18-39 8/13/2018 4:33 PM Michael Marcotte   Against I am not happy with the new trash collection plan. As a conscientious recycler and minimal trash generator I want the option to opt out and/or share containers. +4 -3 3 Ord 18-39 8/13/2018 12:42 AM Debbie   Against I support the idea of coordinated trash collection, but this specific plan as written should be s****ped. We generate only 1-2 gallons of trash per week for a 3 person household. Even with 35 gallon service every other week, we'll be paying for service we don't need and subsidizing big trash producers, as the pricing provides a perverse incentive. Why are we giving volume discounts to generate more waste? There is an easy fix that would make people conscious of the trash they produce and encourage them to produce less: charge by straight volume from the first gallon, no bulk discounts.  Our household does not use Christmas tree disposal, and will be subsidizing those who do. We also do not discard 3 bulky items per year. Again, there is an easy and equitable fix: consider the tree a large item, and let households choose to purchase large item disposal, either per item or per year. +6 -3 3 Ord 18-40 8/6/2018 6:18 PM Nora 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 Ord 18-39 8/6/2018 6:16 PM Nora 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. +6 -3 2 Ord 18-39 8/6/2018 3:56 PM Drew   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. Better yet, get rid of the whole organized collection and go back to private collection. +4 -3 3 Ord 18-40 8/6/2018 3:55 PM Drew 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 Ord 18-39 8/3/2018 7:14 PM Jonathan Shuster   Against As a Saint Paul Homeowner for 20 years, and owner of a two-unit home, I request a NO vote to Organized Collection as planned. Especially since two-unit homes are being made to pay for 2 services ( more then doubling my monthly trash bill) when 1 receptacle already meets the needs of the residents. No options for the public to reduce costs. A terrible plan as is. excessive costs, and, as I understand the pricing, this violates some city ordinances related to Trash. Include a every other week, or a discount for less waste. Either all residential housing -including 4+ units buildings being exempted under this plan - or free choice for all property owner. +5 -3 3 Ord 18-40 8/2/2018 10:33 PM Linda 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 Ord 18-39 8/2/2018 10:25 PM Linda Barnett   Against I am against not being able to share trash collection with my neighbors. Four neighbors share trash now and we never fill our container. We all recycle and do organic recycling so we have very little trash. No one should be forced to have trash collection if we don't want it. Also the cost you are charging us is outrageous. +7 -2 2 Ord 18-39 8/1/2018 10:14 PM Tim Harwig ward 4   Against While favoring centralized pick up, I oppose the structure of the agreement requiring separate bins - and extra charges - for each household in small multi family units. It’s not reasonable to place the burden of extra maintenance and a tripling of existing rates. The City’s stayed position that this was necessities placate the desires of trash haulers is both preposterous and out of touch with the needs of its constituents. I’d rather maintain our current structure, however ridiculous, +4 -3 3 Ord 18-39 8/1/2018 7:38 PM Kate 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 -3 3 Ord 18-40 8/1/2018 7:37 PM Kate 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 Ord 18-39 8/1/2018 2:42 PM Jennie Ross   Against I support the concept of organized pick-up, however I think the no-opt out and no sharing is contrary to the intent of waste reduction. I currently share with my neighbors in trash removal services, since my average trash generation is less than one grocery-size bag of trash every 2 months because I reduce, reuse, recycle, donate and compost. Your current plan will substantially increase my costs for trash disposal and, more importantly, will discourage me and others from reducing our trash volume. I ask that you consider the ‘message’ that you are sending to the public about trash generation/disposal by not providing for container sharing and/or opt-out for those who are moving towards zero-waste. Please do not adopt the ordinance as it is now, but amend it to provide accommodations for container sharing and/or opt-out. +6 -2 3 Ord 18-39 8/1/2018 1:54 PM Joe Downes   Against Although I support the concept of organized pick-up, I think the no-opt out, no sharing and multiple bins for duplexes doesn't make sense and is contrary to the intent of waste reduction +7 -3 3 Ord 18-40 7/30/2018 8:12 PM Mary 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 Ord 18-39 7/30/2018 8:06 PM Mary Erjavec   Against 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 +3 -2 2 Ord 18-39 7/30/2018 8:05 PM Mary Erjavec   Against 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 +3 -3 3 Ord 18-39 7/30/2018 8:05 PM Mary Erjavec   Against 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 +5 -3 2 Ord 18-39 7/30/2018 6:30 PM Jennifer Stewart   Against As one who has consciously worked to reduce their "consumption" and "waste", I oppose the trash collection plan as it is currently. Over many years of increasing both my recycling and backyard composting (after participating in the Mac-Groveland neighborhood Zero Waste workshop programs and home compost collection trial), I have no need for regular trash collection service at my home. By my own efforts, I have been able to minimize my trash collection cost over many years; in fact, I've been an 'as needed pick-up customer' (by calling hauler at beginning of week) with my hauler of 21+ years. As St. Paul was exploring the possibility of organized collection across the city, I attended several neighborhood meetings and also one in a different neighborhood, just to see how the folks in another area felt about this. I liked the idea of organized collection, and I spoke up for myself and others who have worked to minimize their trash output and who need very few annual trash pick-ups. +4 -3 3 Ord 18-32 7/30/2018 3:15 PM Eric Anondson   For I no longer live in St. Paul. But I once owned and lived in 1557 Hague about 18 years ago. I bought the house because it was a vibrate commercial district, near desirable neighborhoods, and the house was very low priced. We improved the house by finishing the third floor into livable space, repaired the squirrel damaged roof, and installed the driveway so we wouldn’t have to park on the street anymore. (I wish more homeowners would park on their property instead on whine about others parking on the public streets). I will be sad to see the the first house I ever owned torn down but I support a city growing up, changing, and making even more homes for more people to live in St. Paul. Existing residents shouldn’t get to create moats and walls with the zoning code to keep new residents out unless they meet an income test to acquire from an artificial shortage. I’m glad my first house can be part of creating homes for even more people. This will make Snelling and Selby even greater. +3 -2 1 Ord 18-37 7/27/2018 11:02 PM Alisa Lein   Against Please vote NO on this ordinance. Allow multifamily properties to SHARE a trash cart for the property and not be required to have one cart per dwelling unit. Allow "zerowasters" to opt out of trash service. +3 -1 2 Ord 18-40 7/27/2018 10:54 PM Alisa 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 Ord 18-39 7/27/2018 10:48 PM Alisa 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". +5 -3 3 Ord 18-42 7/27/2018 2:42 PM Alisa Lein   Against Please DO NOT p*** this ordinance. As a property manager of over 180 tenants in St. Paul, tenants should be treated equally and not ***umed to be less engaged in politics than a homeowner. I am 100% for the City and the channels which exist already today to encourage everyone to vote and have their voice heard in each and every election. As a property manager, when asked, I am very happy to provide voter registration information to my tenants. I am NOT OK with being told by the City I am REQUIRED provide voter registration information to all of my tenants. Please do not put this duty on landlords. I am not mom to my tenants, they are adults, and should be treated as such. Please vote no. +4 -1 1 Ord 18-40 7/27/2018 1:44 PM Daniel 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 Ord 18-39 7/27/2018 1:31 PM Daniel Brown   Against This City of Saint Paul Ordinance will double, triple, or even quadruple 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. This arrangement has always been efficient and effective. 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. +5 -2 2 Ord 18-39 7/14/2018 5:46 PM Peter Butler   Against The new trash program is giving haulers a $2-$3 million-dollar yearly windfall by requiring residents who currently share to have their own service and for landlord to provide each rental unit its own cart. The Council is putting the haulers' interest first, supposedly in the name of helping small family businesses. Only one of the city's 11 licensed haulers is a family business LOCATED in St. Paul. The other small haulers are located in Hugo, West St. Paul, Mendota Hts, Inver Grove Heights, Newport and Forest Lake. Residents first! +7 -3 3 Ord 18-42 7/12/2018 10:22 PM Eric Lein   Against This amounts to one more "unfunded mandate" that ***umes tenants (but not homeowners) are incompetent and unable to figure out how to register to vote. Good grief! If the City/County/State cannot get voter registration information into the hands of potential voters, it should not fall only on Landlords to save the m***es. To carry this proposed ordinance's thinking to a logical conclusion, EVERYBODY should be forced to distribute voter registration information --- realtors (at time of closing), employers (at time of hiring), attorneys (upon meeting a new client), city council members (at neighborhood meet-and-greets, and at all public hearings in council chambers), trash haulers (once a year to leave a hang-tag on every trash cart), restaurant owners (when customers pay for meals), etc., etc., etc. THERE IS FAR TOO MUCH "MICROMANAGEMENT" IN TODAY'S CITY GOVERNMENT. +6 -2 2 Ord 18-40 7/12/2018 10:09 PM Eric 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 Ord 18-39 7/12/2018 10:08 PM Eric 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. +7 -2 2 Ord 18-38 7/12/2018 10:07 PM Eric 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. +2 -1 1 Ord 18-37 7/12/2018 10:06 PM Eric 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. +3 -1 1 Ord 18-37 7/12/2018 10:04 PM Eric 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 P*** THIS ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. PLEASE ALLOW "SHARING" OF CARTS AND GIVE SIGNIFICANT CREDIT FOR "ZERO WASTERS" WHO GENERATE LITTLE OR NO TRASH. +3 -1 1