On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a 23-page decision explaining why it required a proposed question on organized trash collection to go to ballot Nov. 5, and how a majority “no” vote might impact organized trash collection in St. Paul.

WHAT WAS THE DECISION?

The court, which in August ordered a vote on Ordinance 18-39 to go to ballot, noted that cities are required by state statute to provide for some form of residential trash collection at least every other week. St. Paul has various ways it can achieve that. As such, even a majority “no” vote against the ordinance would not sever the city’s five-year contract with a group of trash haulers, according to the court.

The court said the $27 million-per-year contract would remain intact, as would all of its associated costs and obligations. However, the city may have to do some legal scrambling to create new ordinances around billing and enforcement.

Bottom line: St. Paul is still on the hook for $27 million to the trash haulers next year.

WHAT ABOUT THE ‘FORCE MAJEURE’ CLAUSE?

Opponents of the city’s five-year contract noted the document has a “Force Majeure” or “Acts of God” clause that allows for the contract to be put on hold in case of unforeseen acts like a nuclear event. The Minnesota Supreme Court reasoned a public referendum would not halt the contract, which could be executed without Ordinance 18-39, making further discussion of the clause irrelevant.

WHO WILL PICK UP MY GARBAGE?

On Wednesday, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter held a press conference outside his office to say trash collection will continue uninterrupted this fall, regardless of whether the “yes” or “no” votes prevail.

Six residential trash haulers currently operate in St. Paul, down from 15 two years ago. Barring further route buy-outs, company consolidations or contract changes, it’s business as usual for those haulers and the customers along their routes.

HOW WILL MY GARBAGE BILL CHANGE?

This is a tricky one. If Ordinance 18-39 is shot down by voters on Nov. 5, garbage bills could disappear entirely. That’s because the ordinance is largely focused on billing, interest for late payments and other regulations. Without direct billing in place, Carter has said the city would have but to shift $27 million in costs over to property taxes. In other words, no more fees — but higher taxes.

Some critics have questioned whether the city could simply write a new ordinance and keep direct billing to ratepayers intact. That remains to be seen.

HOW WILL MY TAX BILL CHANGE?

This is an even bigger can of worms. If $27 million in costs are shifted to property taxes, all taxable properties will share in the bill, regardless of whether they are 1-to-4 unit properties and receive trash services under the contract.

Popular Articles ‘It’s devastating’: Harassment of COVID public health workers is widespread and ‘unprecedented,’ officials say.

Soucheray: A peaceful transfer of power? We’ll get there, if that’s the vote. Or else.

MN woman facing murder charges for ignoring daughter’s medical alarms

Charges: 17-year-old shot 15-year-old in face during marijuana deal in St. Paul

St. Paul district to wait on reopening schools, citing lack of staff That means multi-unit apartment and condominium buildings, pizza shops, affordable housing complexes, office towers and private parking ramps will all pay higher taxes, just like single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes.

The differences will be dramatic from property to property and may vary by thousands of dollars, depending largely upon the property type and estimated market values. The Ramsey County Auditor’s office has crunched some numbers for various properties, and a summary is online at tinyurl.com/TrashTaxShift.

SO WHY BOTHER TO VOTE AT ALL?

A “no” vote would send a strong message to the city that many of the 73,000 customers are not pleased with the five-year contract, which many say is too pricey and does not allow cart sharing, even within duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes.

The increased costs are likely to be passed onto renters by their landlords.

Plaintiffs in the St. Paul Trash lawsuit believe the city may still be able to convince trash haulers to come back to the negotiating table, reopen the five-year contract and lower rates, or at least allow cart-sharing between households.

A co-owner of Highland Sanitation recently said, however, that the six remaining haulers have no financial incentive to reopen the contract, and any contract changes would require unanimous approval from all of them, which is unlikely.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

The city of St. Paul entered into a five-year contract with 11 residential trash haulers in Nov. 2017, and the city council voted 10 months later to move forward with Ordinance 18-39, which creates billing and other regulations around organized trash collection.

Opponents obtained roughly 6,000 signatures against the ordinance and asked that it be put to voters through a public ballot.

The city council refused, following advice from the city attorney’s office.

The courts, however, felt differently. A Ramsey County District Court judge ordered the city to move forward with the ballot referendum. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that decision in August, and explained its reasoning Wednesday.