2013-05-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the carts, Mr. Pratt opined that this seemed to provide the vendor with a price advantage and reducing future bids. However, Mr. Pratt noted that this had not been evidenced in other communities, with incumbent vendors still proposing a price increase on the next round. Mr. Pratt stated that it was staff s interpretation that this may not be completely accurate, and suggested if the City owned the carts, the City should experience a decrease on the second round. Mr. Schwartz noted that purchase of bins over a three (3)year contract, with an alternate (5)year contract, should help with amortizing cart costs. Mr. Schwartz also noted that the RFP talks about requiring the vendor to collect the old bins/lids and reimburse the City $1/each. However, Mr. Schwartz questioned if that was cost-effective; noting that when the switch was made to single sort in some areas, customers were told to keep their bins for storage in their garages or for other uses; and again questioned if that was a better option than paying $1/bin. Mr. Pratt clarified that the City had originally purchased the bins/lids; and the rationale in asking the vendor to pay the City was that the City could then resell the bins for recycling, allowing it to recoup some of those original costs. Mr. Pratt noted that the City would be paid by the vendor and the vendor could set up a collection day and anyone not wanting to keep their bin had the option to drop it off on collection day. Since the City had already purchased the bins, Mr. Pratt advised that the City would get the scrap value back from those for some small return on their purchase. At the request of Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Pratt confirmed that the carts would be brought to a central location on one specific day, and not collected and hauled from curbsides. In Section 5.2 1, Vice Chair Stenlund noted that Fire Station#2, even though not in service, was still listed as a municipal pick-up site. Mr. Pratt responded that it was intentional to leave it on the list as its future use remained an unknown; and also noted the inclusion of the new Fire Station when it comes on line. Mr. Pratt recommended leaving all municipal buildings currently listed. In Section 8.01, Mr. Pratt noted the contract term of three (3) years and an alternate for a five (5) year contract, based on past experience with the 2005 RFP process. While feeling a five year contract would provide the City with lower prices for the term and the ability to amortize costs better, Mr. Pratt advised that the City Council's current policy was for every Professional Services Contract to be reviewed after three (3) years; and any deviation would require City Council approval. At the request of Vice Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pratt advised that this Section would require City Council approval of allowing the alternate proposal at five (5) years. Member DeBenedet expressed his hope that the City Council would consider a longer term contract. Page 6 of 15