Despite a judge’s ruling seemingly to the contrary, St. Paul’s mayor said Friday that organized trash collection will continue in St. Paul — even if the city has to borrow $13 million from its financial reserves and raise property taxes next year to pay for it.

“Trash collection will continue to operate uninterrupted in the city of St. Paul,” said Mayor Melvin Carter. “Residents do not need to, nor should they make any attempt to, secure alternative trash services.”

Carter on Friday joined City Council President Amy Brendmoen, St. Paul Public Works Director Kathy Lantry and others in announcing that there will be no interruption to the residential trash hauling system put in place last October for one- to four-unit residences.

The city has a binding five-year contract with a consortium of private haulers, and nothing in the order signed Thursday by Ramsey County District Judge Leonardo Castro invalidates it, Carter said.

“What may change is how we pay for it,” Carter said.

VIDEO of Mayor Carter, in his own words: pic.twitter.com/rNy16tzNe5 — FredMelo, Reporter (@FrederickMelo) May 31, 2019

The mayor promised that the city will appeal Castro’s order, which requires that a key ordinance underpinning organized trash collection — Ordinance 18-39 — be put on hold June 30 and placed on the ballot for voter approval.

“We are hopeful that the appeal will be successful,” Carter said.

If the appeal fails, however, or lingers in the courts, city government may have to pay residents’ trash bills through the end of 2019 — an estimated $13 million cost that would be drawn from reserves, Carter said.

By policy, the city’s reserve funds may not drop below 15 percent of its general fund budget, and the city would be forced to recoup all or part of the $13 million through a property tax increase in 2020, according to the mayor.

“Right now that’s just a possibility, depending upon what happens,” said interim City Finance Director John McCarthy.

Peter Butler, one of three plaintiffs who sued to get a voter referendum over the trash-collection system on the ballot, said the city was wrong to dig in its heels.

Related Articles Despite Trump attacks, both parties vow orderly election

Mike Pence and Ivanka Trump visit metro, pushing law-and-order message. Dems: What about the pandemic?

Mike Pence and Ivanka Trump visit salon damaged in Minneapolis unrest

Lakeland mayor fined $250 over missing disclaimer on campaign material

Minnesota’s Legal Marijuana Now Party congressional candidate dies; election for 2nd District postponed “I don’t think the (appeals) courts will care that the city has a contract,” said Butler, who encouraged officials to reopen the contract. “The whole issue is whether the citizens have a right to vote on the ordinance that set up the program. If I were the city, I would negotiate with the haulers. I don’t think they ever really wanted this program. And the haulers need a license from the city to do business, so the city has some leverage to negotiate.”

‘SYSTEM … CANNOT BE UNRAVELED IN 30 DAYS’

For decades, residents of St. Paul had chosen their own trash haulers.

Eager to create safer streets and more uniform rates and hoping to cut down on illegal dumping, the city entered into negotiations with 15 private haulers in 2016.

The St. Paul City Council later agreed to a five-year contract that separates the city into zones, each one serviced by a single company.

Landlords and zero-waste advocates have criticized the fact that there are no opt-outs and tenants are no longer able to share carts, and even some advocates for organized trash collection have called the negotiated rates too high and customer service uneven.

Opponents dubbing themselves St. Paul Trash gathered more than 6,000 signatures to put a ballot question regarding trash collection to voters.

The effort was rejected 6-1 by the St. Paul City Council, which cited state statutes allowing municipalities to take the lead on trash collection, as well as the legally binding nature of the five-year contract.

Judge Castro disagreed, noting the city’s charter — its constitution — explicitly allows voters to pursue ballot referendums.

“The consortium of haulers now serve all of St. Paul’s more than 73,000 one- to four-unit residences,” Carter said Friday. “Yesterday, we received a court order ordering the city to suspend (the ordinance) which authorizes our coordinated collection fee structure. … A system which took two years to create simply cannot be unraveled in 30 days. We intend to appeal this decision.”

Opponents of organized trash collection celebrated with a bar party at Tin Cup’s on Rice Street this week, announcing on Facebook that residents may now pick any hauler they want.

The mayor said that’s not the case.

“Because suspending the ordinance does not suspend the contract, we will continue to operate under it,” Carter said.

Even if what opponents say is true, the field has narrowed by more than half, and many residents will find that their old hauler is no longer in operation, at least not within the city limits.

St. Paul was until recently served by 15 residential trash haulers, but companies have been buying out each other’s routes for months, an industry-wide trend that accelerated under the city’s new trash-collection system.

Seven companies still operate in St. Paul: Advanced Disposal, Aspen Waste Systems, Gene’s Disposal Service, Highland Sanitation, Pete’s Rubbish Hauling, Republic Services and Waste Management.

Related Articles Sept. 30 is last day for public comment on Pigs Eye Lake makeover

Staffers at MPR’s music stations The Current and Classical MPR vote to unionize

St. Paul woman sentenced for manslaughter in man’s death; murder charge dismissed

Ford Foundation grants $2.5 million to St. Paul’s Penumbra Theatre, a record for the Black arts organization

With new shops and street improvements, Saturday’s ‘Rice and LarpenTOUR’ showcases three cities If ordinance 18-39 is put to public ballot, it could happen during the city elections in November, which will include city council and school board races.

In response to a reporter’s inquiry, City Attorney Lyndsey Olson said the city council technically could call a special election earlier, but “that’s not something we’re pursuing at this point.”

For cities without a primary, the last day to call for a special election was Friday.