Forest Lake: It's a bunch of garbage.

(lawsuit data is listed below all of the background videos)

In 2014 a Request For Proposal (RFP) was opened for bidding on the monopoly contract for residential garbage service in Forest Lake.  Two bids were made by companies both headquartered in adjacent counties, SRC in Chisago County and Walters in Anoka County.  After receiving bids rather than accept the lower bid the city choose to enter into negotiations only with SRC to see if they would reduce pricing, among other contractual language, to be in line with Walters lower bid.  While both contracts varied in some relatively minor details the major difference after this exclusive negotiation left Walters at 15% less expensive than SRC.  A split council at the time negotiated some details with SRC and ultimately signed an exclusive 5 year contract that ends in August of 2019.  The contract included that SRC provide annual reports to city hall and they could be granted an increase based on CPI.  Margaret Strand, owner of SRC, agreed and signed the contract.

SRC has since been the only provider to residents of the area and online searches reveal quite a few complaints about the business.  Many of those complaints, as well as those we've heard, circle around what many believe to be unethical billing practices.  While it's impossible to obtain just how many people have complained to SRC over time, we have discovered that court records show at least 910 court cases, including 61 businesses, were filed by SRC / Forest Lake Sanitation / Town & Country Disposal towards residents and businesses in the Forest Lake region.  Many of these cases were for amounts less than $75.  We are unaware of any other business in the region that uses the court system to file lawsuits in the volume that SRC has weighed on the public and local business.

Here's some history on the current contract:
May 19, 2014: City Council Meeting - SRC Contract Agreement

 (1 of 2 council discussion on 5.19.2014, 65 minutes) 

 (2 of 2 council discussion on 5.19.2014, 12 minutes)

A Walters representative spoke in open forum about the benefit in residential rates, annual washing of carts and transitioning fleet to natural gas fuel which was described to reduce decibel noise by 80% along with being more environmentally friendly.  City benefits included city garbage services without charge along with rebating the city 50% of all recyclable profits.  He promised to partner with the city in an open, cooperative and transparent manner.

Marge Strand of SRC said they've been a service provider since 1985.  She noted in this meeting they have no history of complaints from residents.

Aaron Parrish, (now former) Forest Lake City Administrator presents (29 minutes) - Walters would also offer a less frequent service, every other week for low volume customers.  14% less expensive for small, 15% savings for residents for medium and 14% savings for large container services.  He equated it to be equivalent to a 4% tax increase on the average home.

He went on to present that SRC was unwilling to match a performance payment bond to address liability.  Cart washing was not included in SRC contract but was in Walters.  Walters would offer free service to city buildings, public works, parks be provided at no cost of trash and recycling service.  8-9,000 savings directly to city.  He said that SRC would not negotiate with the city.  SRC would not provide revenue sharing for recycling but Walters would.  It was unknown how much this would generate.  SRC would accept 100% of the risks and 100% of the rewards on recycling.

Council members had various comments and concerns over a rather long discussion that included tabling the item to later in the meeting so that the administrator could step out and present later.  Some key comments during the meeting included:

"Any information not provided that's required; then they would be in violation of contract." - Ben Winnick, then council member and current mayor.

It appears that SRC has not fulfilled the requirement with an annual report of what they are contractually obligated to provide to the city.  

Susan Young, then council member and current mayoral candidate questioned if SRC had provided quarterly and yearly reporting and where that information is located.  It was apparent in the discussion that these reports were not provided to the city.  Subsequently Mayor Chris Johnson along with (then) council members Ben Winnick and Mike Freer voted no on accepting the Walters proposal.

Later in the meeting (1:40:00) a motion to reconsider contracts restarted discussion and following additional conversation a motion (1:52:00) passed on a 3-2 vote.  It was to approve the SRC Refuse and Recycling Agreement provided the bond amount is increased to 500,000 the first year and then drops 375,000 the second year assuming no claims or liquidated damages and the contract is revised to include curbside collection. In addition, a signed contract needs to be delivered to city hall by 12:00 p.m. on (the following) Wednesday or the contract would be awarded to Walters.

August 13, 2018: City Council Meeting - SRC Request

 

(full council discussion on 8.13.2018, 44 minutes)

Marge Strand requested, some might suggest demanded, that the city council allow SRC to increase the fees charged to residents on her monopoly services provided to residents.

Her basis of the rate adjustment as a result of due to contractual arrangements with their tipping fees, self-described 'crisis' with the recycling market, and wants the CPI infiltrator that is in the current contract.  She claimed that neighboring communities had much greater costs of service.  (below is information this is false)

City of Forest Lake, 8.27.2018 City Council Meeting Agenda Packet

Marge Strand when questioned responded to the council, "It makes me angry you wouldn't support a Forest Lake business."  Her business is located in neighboring Chisago County and with her history filing lawsuits on at least 61 local businesses her business support is questionable.

City of Forest Lake, 8.27.2018 City Council Meeting Agenda Packet

Organized collection has Forest Lake in the middle of the pack when compared to other nearby cities and with the rate increase it would be pennies from the most expensive and nearly twice the cost to residents than White Bear Lake.

"You have no complaints, except from the people that don't pay their bill." - Marge  She then added that she'd like an extension (on the contract) too.

"I know you don't know my business but we are fair, we are dependable, we are courteous, we serve this community in many volunteer ways." - Marge

Marge ignores the fact she's been allowed to charge 15% more than the market rate and rather complained that "a measly $3/month savings in the (existing) contract" referencing the cost reduction following the 2014 RFP process and subsequent negotiations.

Mayor Ben Winnick, similar in fashion to his words in 2014, repeated several times during the meeting that he had "never received a complaint about SRC."

Marge then went on to use the overused phrase, "We're talking about a cup of coffee a month."  She then furiously responded to a question from council member and mayoral candidate, Ed Eigner.

SRC's business office manager said that another hauler has recently filed a lawsuit against the state of Indiana over recycling.  There was no apparent reason other than leading us to believe they'd do the same.  The SRC owner then came back saying they tell new customers recycling is options and she doesn't care if they just tossed all the recyclables into the garbage.

Council discussion ended without a motion as the topic was a discussion item only on the agenda due to SRC not providing information in time for meeting notification.

August 27, 2018 City Council Meeting - SRC Request Follow-up

(full council discussion on 8.27.2018, 58 minutes)

The interim city administrator gave a presentation and gave council background and answered council questions.  It was followed with SRC Marge again requesting an increase in rates.  This portion of the meeting was rather uneventful until council interaction / questions to SRC started.

Council then began debate and each member in attendance gave insight with their opinion.  Mayor Ben Winnick was absent.

Council member and mayoral candidate, Mara Bain, questioned information in the council packet as it didn't appear to reconcile as it was being presented.  She further suggested that the council go out for a RFP and make a determination of what the market will support.

Council member and mayoral candidate, Sam Husnik, said that he could see a need to give them an increase.

Council member Blaine Backus suggests that giving a 28% increase is unacceptable without shopping around.

Council member and mayoral candidate, Ed Eigner, notes that her business plan isn't sufficient and that's not the fault of the city.

Marge says "We haven't had any complaints."  Mara Bain responded that she has been inundated with complaints.  Marge then had her staff member come up to discuss their archaic payment system.  She then went on a rant.

Mara then questioned why city staff is completing the analysis and Marge blows up at the council.  Mara then questioned when the last annual report was submitted.  Marge appeared to not be aware of what the annual report even is.  City staff responds they have not received it.

Marge blows up at Blaine Backus for asking for an annual report!

Marge accused city staff of wrongdoing, then argues with council members and staff.

SRC / Forest Lake Sanitation / Town & Country Disposal Lawsuit Information

Here is a list of lawsuits that SRC has filed under SRC, Forest Lake Sanitation or Town & Country Disposal.  Those highlighted in orange are businesses.  There is a total of 910 lawsuits on the list, 471 were filed in Washington County and 61 are businesses.  We have reason to believe that this list is not comprehensive of all cases filed and have listed only those we were able to search for online.



One might wonder where these lawsuits are coming from and we've heard from numerous people that it may be a result of excessive fees, particularly those around late charges.  It turns out that if you make a payment to SRC for your bill an email will be sent confirming payment has been received and processed, however they don't post the payment until 10 days later - a time that is after they've then added on a late fee to the bill.

It seems that SRC is taking advantage of a vast number of people and according to many online complaints it's apparently a more prevalent issue with their companies.

Google Reviews has Forest Lake Sanitation at 2.2 stars on a scale that goes between 1 and 5.  The owner said she's never received a complaint, so it's interesting to see that she responds to some of those reviews online.

Running a billing system as archaic as it appears they are is one thing, to charge customers that have no other choice in service a late fee as a result, then have poor customer service when questioned about it and apparently file lawsuits for those that choose to not agree to pay - it's wrong.

Final Thoughts
Marge said in the meeting that the $5/month ($60/year) increase amounts to a cup of coffee but our calculations find it's approximately a $300,000 increase for the next year to customers.  Over the course of a 5 year contract, this amounts to $1,500,000.  Forest Lake is currently undergoing budget discussions and looking at the current plans this is the equivalent to:

• Nearly the entire 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 capital budget for the fire department including 3 fire engine replacements, a tender, command vehicle and UTV.
• The entire 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 & 2023 capital budget for the police department with approximately a half million dollars left to spare.
• Covers the City Center Complex (city hall, police, fire, administration...) building bonds for a year with cash to spare.
• Covers the YMCA bonds for almost 3 years.

It's a lot of money and it's a lot more than just a cup of coffee.  In the instance of a monopoly service contract, it's akin to a tax - one that in this case the public isn't getting a benefit from.

SRC isn't the best fiscal option, isn't forthcoming in the bidding/negotiations, is hostile with council members, has sketchy billing practices, when customers complain they respond poorly and they often file lawsuits against customers - both residents and businesses and now they want to back out of an agreement and add $300,000 / year more in revenue above and beyond the special 15% premium they got over market rate pricing.  Simply put, it's a bunch of garbage.


Forest Lake's next scheduled city council meeting is on September 10th at 7pm.  The agenda for that meeting has not yet been determined and we may not know if SRC will be on it until days before.

Conflict of Interest Weighs on Newport Planning Commission Chair Who Sold Land to Developers on Project He is in Charge of Overseeing

This article is authored by Laura E. Pride Verbout, attorney, a Newport resident who lives on Ria Lake that is impacted by the proposed Bailey Meadows development.

The chair of the Newport Planning Commission, Kevin Haley, has sold key lake front property to housing developers while at the same time being responsible to oversee that the project is to city standard. Most would call that a conflict of interest. On his former land they plan to build 7 homes. They will cost a predicted half a million dollars each. He purchased the property for $155,000 years ago; He refuses to say how much he sold it for; He refuses to remove himself from the planning or the commission decision making and the votes; He denies any conflict of interest; and blames the Met Council for one of the most high density single family home developments one can find in the County.

Bailey Meadows Development is a proposed "mix of high density to medium density residential housing" for 200 homes in Newport. The project centers around land between Ria and La Lakes. From the start, the project has felt rushed through the approval process. Leaving residents, like myself, to attend meetings to bring up our many concerns. Oversight the planning commission should be leading.

For example, in the July 2017 planning commission meeting a resident who lives down the road from me on lake Ria pointed out the lack of environmental consideration the development has. The resident referenced his background in construction and stated the lake levels could be affected by development and the wildlife could be negatively impacted too. Stating "I guarantee there won’t be wood ducks on the lake anymore if 200 people throw a canoe into the lake anytime they want." In the meetings that followed the commission put in vague land use restrictions for those living within 1,000 feet of the lake and put the DNR in charge of public water access. Whether that is good enough to protect the wildlife from 200 new residents will remain to be seen.

In other planning commission meetings residents, besides myself, brought up concerns that everything from added street and residential lighting to increased traffic on existing roads would be unwelcomed changes. Other's commented the development seems like a gated community; noting the lack of parking to access the trail and a small park planned. The head of the planning commission Kevin Haley always seems to be the first to interject with a defensive response. For example telling the resident concerned about extra neighborhood lighting stating that it's a federal law and there's nothing the city law can do to supersede it. 

It seemed odd at first seeing our concerns, the environmental impact, and even details about utility placement and cost taking a back seat. That is until the November 9th planning commission meeting where it was found that he has sold property to developers in the proposed development. He's listed as one of four property owners at:

3025 Bailey Road NE, Newport, MN 55055

​

His lake front lot is large enough to fit seven half a million dollar houses on. As one of four land sellers and with so much power, one can imagine the great incentive he had to to meet the developers needs over the surrounding residents. The story develops further when you see that Haley's planning commission pushed to shrink the current city density ordinances to fit the most homes possible on the property. When approved this translates to even more value to Mr. Haley's property. See page 12 of the PUD November 9th meeting:

"Single-Family lots: 

Reduction in side setbacks for Single-Family lots from 9’ to 7’ on the dwelling unit side. 

Reduction in lot depth from 120’ to 110’ 

Decrease in minimum lot area from 7200 square feet to 6050 square feet 

Villa lots: 

Reduction in side setbacks for Villa lots from 9’ to 5’ on dwelling units side 

Reduction in minimum lot area from 7200 square feet to 6,000 square feet"

There's other questionable requests for exceptions in the proposal that benefit the developer's profit such as:

-"If the developers build the trail, the cost of the trail may be included in the park dedication fee." It seems odd to have the tax payers not in the development pay for trails around it.

-Decreasing street right-of-way from 60' to 50' 

-Decreasing the width of the city standard street from 31' to 28' (saves developer money and boosts property size and profit)

-"Surmountable curbs" instead of city standard "B-16" curbs stating it "allows more flexibility for designing homes and driveways on narrower lots"

At one point the County responded to the planning commission's unsafe request about the 50 foot of right-of-way stating that type of roadway needs 75 feet of right-of-way to be safe in an October 27th letter to the planners. Other overlooked safety concerns were explained by the County. 

-"road A" has 30 foot change in grade (height) in a short distance. Stating they should reconsider this steep of a road.

-That the intersections leading into the development should have center of the road left hand turn lanes given just the current traffic volumes on the road not to mention the future traffic by the year 2030.

-The drainage ponds need to be proven adequate to prevent runoff (apparently their design from Haley's Newport PUD appear to small)

-The design submitted to the County appears to not have sound mitigation measures in place that are required by law.

Everything about the Haley's planning commission appears to focus on putting the biggest houses on the smallest lot sizes possible in a development with the smallest roads possible with the least amount of added costs for the developer. Anyone can look at the design, even at a glance, and note this development is uncommonly tight, especially compared to neighboring housing developments.

Kevin Haley responded when asked about his apparent conflict of interest, refusing to step down from decision making or voting on the plans that appear to favor the developer's profits over the residents concerns. Even in this late stage of planning. He stated "The Final and binding vote is with the city council. As far as street width, lot size ect. the Met Councils directives have a large influence, along with costs to provide sewer and water. The sale price of the small acreage on my parcel will be available from the county when it is finalized."

This response is of no comfort to neighbors of this cramped development who will be affected by the added traffic and affect on the lakes. Blaming Met Council is a poor excuse as they do not control how an area is zoned. The planning commission could have seen how bad the zoning was and intervened. The head of the planning commission should be a safeguard for the city residents from concerning development like this. They are an important role between a developer and a city council. Without a good planning commission head you can get a development rubber stamped and sent to the city council for final approval where at such time it is too late to send developers back to the drawing board without consequence. 

City Councils do not have time to be the middle man between developers and city, county and state code so they put it on the planning commission. In this case, the planning commission oversight has terribly failed. Hopefully the city council will realize the mistake of letting Kevin Haley run this project with such disregard for the needs of the current residents and the two lakes. The Newport City Council vote is this Thursday at 5:30pm. 

Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP

Representative Kelly Fenton (Republican) district 53B is what most fiscal conservatives in her party would call a RINO (Republican in Name Only) based on her record since day one of taking office in 2014. Her latest insult to party principle of fiscal responsibility is a bill to allow a new 2% lodging tax for Woodbury with HF1057. This comes after several Hotels recently decided to build in Woodbury (likely to avoid the higher taxes of downtown and pass the savings onto customers). New hotels to Woodbury such as the Sheraton, La Quinta, and Residence Inn by Marriott.

What better way to say welcome to Woodbury than to wait for them to finish building and then stab them in the back with a new tax just for them. We requested comment from Representative Fenton. Here's her unedited full quote:

"Under current law, Woodbury and other cities are able to levy a tax of up to three percent on lodging. My legislation will ultimately save taxpayers money by dedicating two-thirds of that tax collected by the city to fund renovations and improvements to Central Park. Without this legislation, local property taxpayers would ultimately be forced to foot the bill for these improvements. Any suggestion that this bill would authorize a new tax or give the city new authority to raise taxes is demonstrably false. I think this legislation is a win for our community and for the hardworking taxpayers of Woodbury."

I responded proving she was wrong on all counts stating:

1.) It would be a new tax for Woodbury because they don't currently impose a lodging tax. Which is the whole reason they probably built here in Woodbury over most of the other suburbs that do have the tax or high taxes in general. Even the liberal coverage at the Star Tribune called it a "new tax" in their article covering the story.

2.) Also false is the premise that current law does not allow cities to keep the lodging tax revenue for themselves. According to the Woodbury Bulletin article on this story 95% of the tax can be used by the city with the law staying as it currently is! 

3.) City Councilor Chris Burns in the Bulletin article also calls Fenton's bill "a new tax" and goes further to explain they don't need the tax (contrary to Fenton's claim they need it for the Central Park)!:

"he feels the city could create a welcoming center at Central Park without levying a new tax.
“A tax is a tax,” he said. “I'd like to have less taxes and lower rates.”"
4.) Furthermore the idea that property tax payers in Woodbury would be left to foot the bill for the City Center is also false. Just across I-94 from Fenton's district in Lake Elmo the city's development motto is "growth pays for growth." This is a theme of many cities across the County. Liberal cities like "growth pays for growth" because city tax payers are not bailing out "Big Business". Conservative cities like Lake Elmo like the policy because one person isn't having their money taxed away only to have it redistributed to someone else for a cause they may never use.

To our knowledge at Washington County Watchdog Representative Fenton has yet to author a bill to decrease the size of government, decrease a tax, or reform nightmare State run programs like the unaccountable public schools, MNsure, Met Council, and boondoggle mass transit corridors. Actually the opposite appears in her legislative history. With bills for the Gateway Corridor, $189,000 for a fully privately funded park, giving the County power over the cities for their economic development authority, and spending for efforts many would be frustrated to see State resources going to fund. 

we asked her:

Would you like to respond to defend your apparent lack of fiscal conservative record as far as the bills you decide to author (and not author)?

Representative Fenton did not respond. This silence and her record speaks volumes about who she really is and the damage she causes to her party. A person can have respect for a democrat who issues tax and spend legislation like this because at least they are honest about their agenda before you vote. A person can have no respect for a RINO who lies on the campaign trail and hi-jacks a party because they know they're more likely to get elected with a (R) behind their name than a (D) in a given area. 

Four Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader  
Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill  

At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease

Exclusive: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit