2015-11-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

217 hard by inflation or by competitive bidding in the contracting field, since it was 218 more of a specialty area versus general street construction bids. However, Mr. 219 Culver admitted that it defined how much work could be done each year, and while 220 an annual look at the CIP was performed and revised accordingly, there may be a 221 better way for that analysis to inform the annual projections and amount available 222 for CIP and operations, especially in addressing systems that may fail sooner than 223 anticipated, and impacting depreciation projections. 224 225 From his personal perspective, Chair Stenlund opined that overall percentages 226 remained basically at or less than inflation, providing very competitive number with 227 the City still able to deliver services in spite of a very aged infrastructure system 228 with approximately 67 miles of clay pipes remaining. 229 4r, * 230 Recycling Operations 231 Despite being able to reduce recycling rates in the last budget cycle, Mr. Miller 232 reported for 2016 there would be a reality check as revenue sharing projections 233 were falling very much lower than anticipated due to a reduction in resale values. 234 Mr. Miller clarified that the City of Roseville's volume remained strong, one of the 235 highest in the metropolitan area, but resale value and demand was not comparable 236 to past years and not materializing as projected. Therefore, Mr. Mill eadvised that 237 staff was proposing a rate increase for 2016. 238 239 At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver explained the increase in SCORE 240 grant funding from 2015 to 2016 based on a series of factrs and how and what the 241 City of Roseville qualified for based on their annual application. Mr. Culver 242 advised that, since the City Council just approved the grant application at their 243 meeting last night, staff would bring more information to them once Ramsey 244 y a proves the grant application. 245 C„ount,,,.......�� 246 r. Miller explained that one reason for the increase was that the 2015 budget 247 understated the amount of grant funds received by the City of Roseville clarifying 248 that it was closer to $75,000 to $80,000 with those numbers adjusted to reality as 249 well. 250 251 As part of this discussion, Mr. Culver reminded the PWETC of the contract with 252 Eureka Recycling expiring on December 31, 2016, and work early in 2016 on the 253 Requests for Proposal (RFP's) for 2017 and beyond. Given this decrease in revenue 254 sharing monies, Mr. Culver noted that it should be anticipated that this fee may 255 change substantially going forward. Also, Mr. Culver noted that the City of 256 Roseville received a very favorable rate from Eureka Recycling, since Roseville 257 serves as their "gold standard” among other jurisdictions and agencies based on the 258 unique aspects (e.g. residual rates indicate 2-3% trash coming out of recycled 259 materials) compared to other communities and providing additional value to Eureka 260 Recycling operations. 261 Page 6 of 18