The URL can be used to link to this page

232940 -� � ` - � �3 ' !� . q ' '� ORIGINAL TO CITY CLERK ��' �ti ,�� J�1( OF ST. PAUL FOENCIL NO. �� . �1 � •- E F THE CITY CLERK F 'T � ,; UTION-GENERAL FORM `E ' � PRESENTED 6Y �"^'r• �SH� IN• OF I� � COMMISSIONE DAT � {"g I i i �i .� � � � �� y I{ ? .k . . ` � h'�j , � � RESOZ4ED, T}�at checka be drawn on the City Treasnry, ,, k � - ; � �� 6�.� ��h �: � � . . to the aggregate amount of $ 1 0 1 0 .80 , covering F i � � � �, y 9�9-��.� � �i � chscks numbered 712�I to �3�3�"' �� inc�usive, as per �4 , cY�ecks or pertinent ].isting of same on file in �e office �� 3 ;' � 1.� - ,t � 1 s : ;- of the City Compt�oller. ',� � � J � ' t � � i �k � � i� � � Joseph J. Mitchell - � City Comptroller ° , °t . � , , i _ � � � ; � � - i{ - - ,� �-- �� ; � ;� �; � i l �� _� l I ,I � �� /�PR 1 I 1��7 I� .� � COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19— _ � , Yeas Nays � ' Carlson �PR � 1 196�' _; F .: Dalglish proved_ 19� 9 ; i ; Holland �� Tn Fsvor �� + �� ' Meredith � ;. Peterson Mayor ; � '• Tedesco Aga�st � '� ` F Mr. President, Byrne � � . � ! ; � �22 ; � i � � � � �� ?. - . . . � . � .� _, . - , - . __ - ;' - 1 : , , � : � 3 i . �� i � _ Remarks by Commias3oner Robert F. Peterson # � �� .. _ � • Department of Publ3c Works ! �� i City of St. Paul � .� � - � . Apri1 20� 1967 � � � ' -� ' , f �. f � ` Since the beginning of the year� the Department of Public `k i � � Il �' ' ' � worka has received a total of 35 letters asking questions or criticizing �� , , ,;, the proposed City-operated� c3ty-wide garbage and rubbish service. � �� i� . C Man4r of the letters sterimied from,confusion and misunderstanding. G; : i ! In add3.t3on there have been about 17 letters in the Mail Bag �� ' , : � ' of the local newspapers concerning the proposed service� six of which ,� - I ; � criticized the service before a plan was either formulated or announced., I ' , '� During this same period, the 1oca1 newspapers --- both on their !, '�� r :, � editorial pages and news pagess--- attempted to dissect the proposed `� �� , ; ' � plan and reassemble it in a most distasteful manner. The princ3.pal k , . ' �� s- ob�ections of the papers stem from the compl3cated framework that they j� �� ly s�y compr3.ses the proposed ordiance. And� what�s more� they donot like I� • � I` the idea that we Won't force everyone in the City to p�y for the service� � . � � whether they need it or want ito . fE �; , Let me say r3ght now that the staff od the Department of Public , ` ' ' � '{ r Works� the profess3onal eng3neers and department heads9 assure me that our •� 'm proposed plan based on the proposed ord3.ance wi.11 work.( Perhaps the � � �: '� ordinance would appear�lesa complicated to some if they were aw�e that � ,� .� 50 per cent of its contents are simply a repetition of the laws already .� � ; ,� on t he books of the City) Secondly� I am ttot of a mind to force about i •�� half the citizens of 8t. Paul to pay for something they e3ther don�t want ,� ' , . ,� � : "' or don�t need• � ��,. . , " . • _ � k . , , �i . � � � page 2 ,t ;� ,'�:• ' � i � � .� .--� ' + . !� �� ; ��:`- ., ,�, . � ' � I also want to report that we have had some indirect opposition � rr . �� ,�� 1. �: ;. from some rubb3sh haulers in the w�y of some 2�000 prepared post cardso 11 �:.�, :� : � Z�e received these cards before we had formulated a complete plan and before �F �� '''i ; ' f, ;, ;. . . ,} �a : We announced aur proposal. i`{ �� , �� ; 4� � ' _ In the face of thia limited oppos3tion and Qomplaints atirred f ` � � . li� S I Y , in the main by special interests� We are comri.nced that the proposed �' n L: : •'� �''t'I '�; � '`.-� , . service to householders has advantages and benefits that far outweigh �j�. •,;�, � :� . � �,, F:�.. � ar�► compla3.nta We hav�e heard� to dateo Under the plan here�s what � ' ' E'f: � • s-.• . �t ' ;,�: ' the hpuseholders will gets . ' �` �` :' `�, . ��;�. `1F�j � - lo Each household aerved will get all of its refuse --- both �:` � . ;k iF_ . � garbage and rubbish --- removed every weeko , .�f E�' , . 2, Each houaeholder will p�y less for this xeekly service that �� ' . , � k � ��, most perople p�y for semi-monthly� monthly or less frequent pickup. _�, E - • .� :, � 3o Householdera will have the convenienae of mixing their �,rrapped =� '� ' - � ;� • garbage and rubbish in the same refuse can w3.thout troublesome separationo � , ;� �J � � i l�, Each householder'�!�� the3r neighborhood and St. Paul E� � generally will be a cleaner� healthier place to liveo 1`; °'- � . • . . l� _� . � t;= �. _ � i_� ��, �t this point I Hish to stress again that the proposed ordiance '� �, � , . , ! � , ' calls for an optional ser�riceo � � t i :� ' . There are three facts wh3ch we faced f�om the beginning in � �l� �' l= t4 '� ' developing an optional plan for the proposed City pickup systems � . • t 1. Less than half of our citizens subacribe to our gaxbage-only � � . �� - ' ' pickup service --- even though there is no service charge chargeo This ' 'i , :� meana thoae not uaing our service at preaent have garbage disposals and E `. . ,. �_ , � � home incineratora by the tena of thousandso �_ , t , � . � 2. For some 13 years the City building code has required all � � �, :�_ � �rew homes and c�rrellinga to be built with either garbage diaposals or home -_' r �� . . .� . .� �; inaineratore. � � � .� F. . � + c '� � . � . _j, . _� .f •; , • � t , ^ ! ;� ' Page 3 �. � � � s . , �' ' � 1 • 6 t� .l• � { , {}` r �� f (� . � . '� � 3o Tax funds for our ex3sting garbage operat3on expires June 1 � �p. 1� "! �� and we could not get adequate new equipment delivery by that date for j� : �� ,� , ,� a compulsory City wide system even if we wnated oneo �I� . :�� , � � � �, � As a result� on the one hand we were aware of the many Who could ! • � get by without the City service and should not be forecedc;to pay for ' F ; ' � � � , something they neither needed nor wanted, Ota the other hand� we kneW '�! � i� . �� that continuance of the garbage-only system on a fee basis would penalize !'{ , � � ' that category of resident who needed the service simply because we knew � �� :_ � that for about the same charge we could also p3.ckup the rubbish of our .� 'f . �I _ • ;a garbage customerso We also knew that we could offer the service to � ,; � �i - many other residents at a lower cost than they now payo A$ a reault _ � - 1: it soon became evident that the proposed service �aould benefit everyone '� ;,, .� , � � in one wa4Y or anothero ' � i �, �x The amendments to be offered today are designed to clarify the , '� � language of the proposed ordiance. For example� there�s been quite a to do i k �� . about how 600 cubic inches of garbage can be figured, We have an amendment �,+ ,__ f �. that reveals it ia "roughly the size of a large loaf of breado " From a , � :�- � : �common sense viewpoint� I guess we can figure that would be about a g 'k. 1 1/2 pound loafo � �� , ; Another amendment will satisf�r some plastic can fanso However, '� � the cheap plastic can types that shatter 3.n cold weather will not be ,� � ; � .� permitted. Under the amendment� we intend to use common sense in approving � � materials other than galvanized irono we didn't think arXyone would want ua - �� to list the chem3cal n � , a alysis of every manufactured plastic on the market s : in tYie ordinanceo After all that could ma.ke the proposed ordinance as complicated �� i e i� 's � as our critics would have you believeo �, i��, � •- i Now� I have asked our Chief Engineer� Eugene V9 Avery� to background _ � : � � ou on some of the ma.in � .. y points I have mentioned� including the amendmentso �` ' ' �' u i � � �w , , . �l -i ��