2016-02-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

766 Mr. Culver noted that rates were set by the city based on revenue share offsets in 767 the past for recycling. However, with that decreased revenue or revenue often 768 coming in under projections, Mr. Culver noted recycling rates had to be increased 769 accordingly. Depending on the advice of Finance Director Miller, Mr. Culver 770 advised that staff may recommend to the City Council that rate changes be 771 deferred a year and that rates be set based on the payback of services without that 772 revenue sharing; and if any revenue is realized, it be used the following year to 773 offset future rates. Mr. Culver noted that this would result in working with a 774 known versus projected dollar in that case. Mr. Culver advised that this was only 775 a proposal on his part at this point, and had yet to be vetted by Finance Director 776 Miller. Mr. Culver agreed that revenue share be kept as part of the contract; 777 especially given Roseville's continuing low residual rate (garbage contamination 778 or co-mingling with recyclable materials) compared with other communities; as 779 well as its high rate or participation. Mr. Culver opined that vendors should find 780 this beneficial in considering their proposals. 781 11111* 782 At the request of Member Seigler,4r. r. Johnson advised that the city typically had 783 12,000 bins: 9,600 single units and 6,000 multi-family units; clarifying that all 784 multi-family units didn'tIc ividual carts depending on their facility. 785 - 786 Member Seigler asked if recycling fees could be lowered citywide if the vendor 787 was able to keep revenue share °11ii�lllllllllllllll�. 788 789 Member Wozniak noted he was going to suggest that as well and when figures 790 provided by a vendor projected zero revenue share reflected in the city's unit cost 791 (pages 31-33), it required lots of fiddling for vendors and cost them money to 792 determine revenue and re ort is; makin it beneficial for them to not have to 793 794 795 r. Culver admitted that, is wast �gest negative in his proposal to retain 796 revenue sharing going fo d; but no rates may fluctuate dramatically 797 annually and impact contrac accordingly. 798 799 Member Cihacek questioned if revenue sharing could be allocated elsewhere; 800 with Mr. Culver responding that it represented a cost and revenue in and out; and 801 traditionally had been used to offset rates. 802 11 803 Member Cihace while varying annually, and setting fees and rebates in a given 804 year; suggested by not including it, it may also directly impact consumer benefits 805 for residents not recycling. 806 807 Member Seigler suggested eliminating the revenue sharing option if it meant 808 dropping the price $2/month for residents versus revenue sharing benefits. If a 809 vendor could provide a stable, basic and long-term price, Member Seigler opined 810 revenue sharing was no longer worth pursuing. 811 Page 18 of 20