Laserfiche WebLink
443 responding affirmatively for future consideration, whether via bag, another cart or <br />444 how they would propose to collect organics. <br />445 <br />446 Section 5.11: Mr. Johnson noted language specific to missed collections by the <br />447 vendor. <br />448 <br />449 Section 8.04 (page 32): Mr. Johnson addressed the optional revenue sharing <br />450 component and definitions by each contractor to choose a percentage. <br />451 <br />452 Member Cihacek noted that if no revenue, the price would revert back to the base <br />453 price; with Chair Stenlund noting in theory that could lower overall prices for <br />454 residents. IAEL <br />455 <br />456 Mr. Culver agreed, noting that could result in lower and consistent pricing versus <br />457 more volatile pricing. <br />458 IdEW <br />459 Continuation of RFP Discussion Toni ht <br />460 Cart Ownership (city vs. contractor) <br />461 Among questions outlined in the staff report, Mr. Johnson asked f PWETC <br />462 feedback on ownership of the carts, referencing background informat on included <br />463 in the report as indicated, and provided by Ramsey County's consultant, Foth; and <br />464 a grant program available through Ramsey County paying up to 50% of the city's <br />465 cart purchase if that was the preferred option in Roseville. <br />466 <br />467 Member Cihacek questioned if revenue sharing monies could be used to pay for <br />468 the city's cart ownershi and spread out over time. <br />469 1416, Im <br />470 Mr. Johnson responded that it was possible, but would require significant staff <br />471 time in tracking that process; as well as taking into consideration the considerable <br />472 mobilization charge when first rolling out the carts, with the cit potentially <br />473 incurring those costs annuall as well if it chose cart ownership. <br />474 <br />475 Mr. Culver advised that he wa of sure of the Recycling Fund balance at this <br />476 time without consulting with Finance Director Miller on the account; but agreed <br />477 those funds could also be used. Mr. Culver advised that the theory is that if the <br />478 city owns the carts, it would provide a reduction per residential unit for monthly <br />479 or quarterly recycling fees. Mr. Culver noted that another option would be to <br />480 keep the fund as-is to build the fund back up once the carts were purchased by the <br />481 city. Mr. Culver suggested this should all be part of the financial analysis. Mr. <br />482 Culver noted that the real benefit of cart ownership was that after the term is up <br />483 with a contractor, the owner of the carts remained the city and there was no <br />484 swapping out of carts if changing from one vendor to another. Mr. Culver noted <br />485 that this also provided the city another benefit for more flexibility even if <br />486 choosing to terminate a contract with a contractor earlier if needed. <br />487 <br />Page 11 of 20 <br />