New Richland City Council
By JESSICA LUTGENS
Staff Writer
Town residents filled the New Richland City Council chambers during its second meeting of the month on Monday, Nov. 26, in order to express their concerns with recent action taken by the council regarding organized citywide trash and recycling collection. Mayor Christine Gislason addressed the room before the agenda was approved.
“I assume you’re all here because of the newspaper article?” she said, to which the crowd agreed.
Gislason went on to say that the meeting was not a public hearing, and questions and comments would be heard following the presentation of department reports.
“[The trash collection plan] is already a done deal,” Gislason said, referring to the resolution passed on Sept. 24 approving the contract with the city, Waste Management, and Thompson Sanitation. “But if you all feel that you need to be heard, we will take questions after the care center report.”
After about ten minutes, during which time regular monthly reports were presented, it was time to address the reason for the abnormally large turnout for a regular council meeting. According to City Clerk Wayne Billing, the rate is set at $19/month per household, tax included, which will provide each of the 482 residences in the city with two containers: one for garbage, one for recycling. Thompson Sanitation will service residences north of Highway 30 and those south of Highway 30 are to be serviced by Waste Management, though Waste Management will service all recycling. Collection is to be on a weekly basis on Mondays, and the bill for the service is to be included on the current monthly water and sewer bills.
“We understand everyone pays a different amount [for garbage],” Gislason said. “This makes it fair across the board—same price, same service for everyone.”
“And we have no choice?” asked one of the attendees.
“Correct,” said Gislason.
“So it’s even, but not fair,” said an individual, to which Gislason agreed. It was mentioned several times that a public hearing was held in September on the issue, and due to the low turnout, the council assumed there were no major objections to the plan. However, the meeting was not properly advertised, and the final contract was dated August 9—over a month before the public hearing date.
“Was the public hearing included in the city newsletter?” asked an attendee. Gislason said that it was not, as it wasn’t custom for the council to include public hearing dates in city newsletters.
“We advertised the public hearing the same as we usually do,” said Gislason. It was noted that the council is working on a better system to get information to residents, which was also a concern of many in attendance.
“I don’t think you’re doing this right,” an individual said. “You need better communication with the people you’re representing.”
Billing, when asked what started all of this, said that he was presented with a question a few years back. According to Billing, citing the League of Minnesota Cities and Minn. Statute 115A.941, any city with a population of 1,000 or more must ensure that every residential household and business in the city has solid waste collection service. The statute states, “To comply with this requirement, cities are authorized to organize solid waste collection, provide collection by city employees, or require by ordinance that every household and business have a contract for collection services…Cities must follow specific procedural requirements before adopting organized collection of solid waste.” According to the League of Minnesota Cities, a 2009 study estimated that the number of cities with open waste collection was between 65%-80%, whereas cities with organized waste collection was between 20%-35%. (Open collection, as opposed to organized, is defined as a collection system where individual residents and businesses are free to contract with any collector licensed to do business in the city.)
Billing mentioned a 1999 city ordinance that requires organized collection to be contracted by the council, saying that technically, New Richland has been in violation of its own ordinance for nearly 20 years.
“What about the people who honestly can’t afford another monthly bill?” asked an individual, to which no clear answer was provided.
Many people asked why a vote wasn’t held on this subject, but according to Gislason and Billing, it is not allowed as a line item for a referendum. The idea of a petition in opposition to the plan was brought up, and it was said that the city cannot back out of the contract now without it being a breach of contract.
“Will there be a fine if someone doesn’t want the service or doesn’t pay?” asked Jason Casey, recently elected and future sitting council member. If the bill for the garbage service is not paid, it is certified to be collected at the end of the year with property taxes, according to Billing.
“The average overall cost will be lower,” said Billing, noting that those who currently do not pay for garbage service will pay more as a result of this plan.
“Regarding the budget,” said Shawn Weitzel, “Will the money that will be saved by the city be set aside for planned improvements?”
“Yes,” replied Billing, though further details were not provided.
The revised agenda and consent agenda items were approved, along with Resolution 18-10 appointing Loren Skelton to serve as Commissioner of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of New Richland for a term of five years.
Brad Field presented the PeopleService report, which was approved. Ryan Nissen then presented the Maintenance Dept. report, which included purchase requests for cutting edges for a plow at a cost of $475.54 and carbide for a belly scraper at a cost of $726. The purchase requests were approved, along with the report.
Larry Passel presented the care center report, noting that the MDS coordinator has left and the search for a replacement is ongoing. The census is at 48, and state reimbursements for the center should be received in January, according to Passel. Revised financials for September were approved, along with October accounts payable. The report was approved.
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.