Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culver noted that rates were set by the city based on revenue share offsets in <br />the past for recycling. However, with that decreased revenue or revenue often <br />coming in under projections, Mr. Culver noted recycling rates had to be increased <br />accordingly. Depending on the advice of Finance Director Miller, Mr. Culver <br />advised that staff may recommend to the City Council that rate changes be <br />deferred a year and that rates be set based on the payback of services without that <br />revenue sharing; and if any revenue is realized, it be used the following year to <br />offset future rates. Mr. Culver noted that this would result in working with a <br />known versus projected dollar in that case. Mr. Culver advised that this was only <br />a proposal on his part at this point, and had yet to be vetted by Finance Director <br />Miller. Mr. Culver agreed that revenue share be kept as part of the contract; <br />especially given Roseville's continuing low residual rate (garbage contamination <br />or co -mingling with recyclable materials) compared with other communities; as <br />well as its high rate or participation. Mr. Culver opined that vendors should find <br />this beneficial in considering their proposals. <br />At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Johnson advised that the city typically had <br />12,000 bins: 9,600 single units and 6,000 multi -family units; clarifying that all <br />multi -family units didn't have individual carts depending on their facility. <br />Member Seigler asked if recycling fees could be lowered citywide if the vendor <br />was able to keep revenue share. <br />Member Wozniak noted he was going to suggest that as well and when figures <br />provided by a vendor projected zero revenue share reflected in the city's unit cost <br />(pages 31-33), it required lots of fiddling for vendors and cost them money to <br />determine revenue and report is; making it beneficial for them to not have to <br />report it. <br />Mr. Culver admitted that this was the biggest negative in his proposal to retain <br />revenue sharing going forward; but noted rates may fluctuate dramatically <br />annually and impact contractors accordingly. <br />Member Cihacek questioned if revenue sharing could be allocated elsewhere; <br />with Mr. Culver responding that it represented a cost and revenue in and out; and <br />traditionally had been used to offset rates. <br />Member Cihacek, while varying annually, and setting fees and rebates in a given <br />year; suggested by not including it, it may also directly impact consumer benefits <br />for residents not recycling. <br />Member Seigler suggested eliminating the revenue sharing option if it meant <br />dropping the price $2/month for residents versus revenue sharing benefits. If a <br />vendor could provide a stable, basic and long-term price, Member Seigler opined <br />revenue sharing was no longer worth pursuing. <br />Page 18 of 20 <br />