CC_Minutes_2012_1119 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,November 19, 2012 Page 18 City Manager Malinen advised that the City Council could direct that revenues received from all residential customers, both single-family and apartments, be returned; however, he noted that this would leave the City and that Recycling Fund more vulnerable to future declining revenues (e.g. SCORE grant funds). City Manager Malinen cautioned that a bigger concern was if the City became heavily reliant on revenue sharing, currently being received from Eureka Recy- cling, if that goes away again as experienced in the past, the City would become more vulnerable and susceptible in the future. Councilmember Willmus advised that, at the core of his question, was his ob- servation that even with revenue sharing, Roseville households were paying comparable to recycling rates in other communities without revenue sharing. Finance Director Miller, with respect to other communities, a comparison would need to include their cost structure and direct and indirect costs; and offered to look into that in more depth at the City Council's direction. Mayor Roe recognized Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt. Mr. Pratt offered to provide comparison rates as provided by Ramsey County for residential recycling; and stated that Roseville residents continued to pay the lowest rates in Ramsey County, $6.10 per household per quarter. Councilmember Willmus questioned the rationale in evaluating the merits of a contractor shown who offered revenue sharing versus those who do not offer it, if the pretense was that revenue sharing would be used to help subsidize recy- cling rates paid by households. Mr. Pratt, while not aware of the source of Councilmember Willmus' data, ad- vised that in conversations with recycling coordinator peers, the City of Rose- ville's rate remained lower than those with open collection. Councilmember Willmus questioned why revenue sharing was not used to sub- sidize rates. Finance Director Miller clarified that those funds were used and included in projected costs. While recognizing that it was not an exact science, Mr. Miller advised that the$21,000 was projected as an operating surplus in 2012. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller advised that the annual budget aver- aged $500,000 in 2012. Councilmember McGehee opined that, unless she was unaware of something, the City was currently falling short by approximately $1.5 million short of its