New Richland City Council
By JESSICA LUTGENS
Staff Writer
Despite ongoing, highly vocalized concerns and objections from the citizens of New Richland, including a petition, a motion to form a committee to examine the people's concerns over the city's garbage collection plan was shot down at the second city council meeting of the month Monday, Jan. 28.
A petition opposing the garbage plan, created by Randy Fox, containing 153 signatures, was presented to the council by Gail Schmidt, who also read a prepared letter outlining the main concerns and requests. Before she spoke, Mayor Mike Shurson noted some changes in the way the council would accept public input during meetings.
“I just want to remind everybody that this is a council meeting intended to take care of the function of city business,” said Shurson. “However, we certainly want to listen to any information from any citizen. If it’s on the garbage, most of you have already had your say, but if you wanted to have additional say, please get with the city clerk and get on the agenda for the next meeting.”
Shurson also said that in the future any individual wishing to speak at a regular meeting, in addition to being placed on the agenda beforehand, will be allotted three minutes of speaking time.
“A large number of residents are opposed to the mandated garbage disposal agreement signed by the city,” Schmidt’s letter, which was given to the council and those in attendance, stated. “When asked at the Dec. 10, 2018 council meeting, a council member recommended getting a petition and bringing it to a future meeting for the council to make the decision to review the agreement or not.”
The letter went on to outline details of the plan that remain unclear and have, to this date, not been adequately explained by the council. First, why this apparently urgent issue required action. This issue hasbeen visited three times in the past six years, each time met with considerable opposition from city residents. Second, the length of the agreement—the contract among the City of New Richland, Waste Management, and Thompson Sanitation is for six years, with a fixed yearly price increase, even though a three, four, or five-year contract would have been legally acceptable. Third, the actual cost per household of the service has varied: the contract states that the cost of refuse collection is $16.50/month and recycling collection is $6.91/month; it was later stated that the recycling portion would be paid for by the city, but the total monthly fee per household, according to the city clerk, is $19/month. Fourth, the claim that the plan would reduce heavy truck traffic on city streets has not been backed up, and the projected savings from the plan have not been specified. Finally, it is strongly felt that notice of the plan and the public hearing that was held two weeks before the contract was signed were poorly attempted—the outcry after news of the council’s decision to implement the plan was made public, indicates that the majority of residents were unaware of the plan and its impact until after the contract was signed.
“Too many people are not given a choice in this service and are being locked into a six-year agreement,” Schmidt’s letter concluded. “This decision will be a hardship for low income or retired persons on a fixed income. We hope now that the City of New Richland will hear these citizens and do the right thing by reviewing the agreement for services [with the collectors].”
Schmidt also said that she felt the ordinance for the plan was poorly written, confusing, and contained too many open ends. Having researched the topic, including gathering facts from state statutes and discussing it with Senator Julie Rosen, Schmidt suggested the council compare New Richland’s plan with other Minnesota towns. Ultimately, she had but two requests for the council.
“I ask that the council put this matter on hold,” she said, “and look at the ordinance [for the new citywide garbage and recycling collection] and the state statutes.”
Mayor Shurson’s question for Schmidt was the method in which the names on the petition were obtained and whether a petition could be presented to the council. The petition was advertised in the Star Eagle prior to the first meeting of 2019, and New Richland residents wishing to sign did so by calling Fox.
“During the petition signing process, there were people opposed to it because of the cost, but did not have all the details of the agreement,” Schmidt’s letter stated.
After saying her piece, Schmidt thanked the council for their time.
“We will take that for review and go with the merits it provides,” said Mayor Shurson.
A motion was then made by council member Jason Casey to review the agreement and form a committee to address these concerns. With no second, the motion failed.
“Unbelievable,” said a disappointed attendee before walking out of the meeting.
“That is unfortunate,” said Schmidt after a moment of tense silence. Many of those in attendance did not stay for the remainder of the meeting. Based on the decision by the council not to take any action regarding the plan, which goes into effect in March, it appears it will go forward with no changes.
Brad Field presented the PeopleService reports for November and December of 2018, which stated that there were no serious issues during those months, though a rather major part on the wastewater treatment plant’s influent sampler was replaced at a cost of $547. The report was approved.
Ryan Nissen presented the maintenance report, noting 30 delinquent bills/disconnect notices were delivered in December, resulting in one shut off. A purchase request for a new cutting edge for the Loftness snow blower at a cost of $360.40 was approved.
With the extreme cold in the forecast, Nissen was asked about the possibility of frozen water lines, as this can quickly become an expensive problem if preventative measures are not taken and pipes freeze or burst.
“We have a program in place,” Nissen said, noting that he has a list of historically problematic areas in town. “We will test the water temperature in the service lines, and residences with low temperatures will be contacted and asked to run water to prevent the pipes from freezing.”
The maintenance report was approved.
Larry Passel presented the care center report, stating that finances did trend back up in December, though the center ended 2018 in the red. The census as of Monday night was 47.
“January is the month where we should go back into the black,” Passel said. He noted that insurance costs of about $1,200/month per employee are still escalating due to increased staff, but the retainer program has been effective in bringing in and keeping employees, which has been an issue in the past for the center.
“Staffing is still an issue. We’ll hire five people, and three will leave,” said Passel. “But we’re getting ahead of it.”
Bids for work on the care center garage, which has been discussed for almost a year, are still being obtained, and in the meantime the bus is being stored across the street from the center in a garage at a rental cost of $125/month.
Passel expressed his concerns regarding flooding and resident evacuation, and potential preventative measures were discussed. Council member Jessie Shaffer will provide Passel with more information on the subject. Financials and accounts payable for November and December of 2018 were approved, along with the report.
Included in the consent agenda items, which were approved with the exception of an ambulance battery retainer, was the purchase of a secure evidence locker door for the police department at a cost of $295.48.
A motion was made to increase the hourly pay of the contracted employee who cleans city hall from about $10/hour to $20/hour. The reason for doubling the hourly pay is due to significantly decreased hours, which City Clerk Wayne Billing estimates will save the city $1,000 to $2,000 per year. The motion passed with one council member opposed. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m.