Laserfiche WebLink
responding affirmatively for future consideration, whether via bag, another cart or <br /> how they would propose to collect organics. <br /> Section 5.11: Mr. Johnson noted language specific to missed collections by the <br /> vendor. <br /> Section 8.04 (page 32): Mr. Johnson addressed the optional revenue sharing <br /> component and definitions by each contractor to choose a percentage. <br /> Member Cihacek noted that if no revenue, the price would revert back to the base <br /> price; with Chair Stenlund noting in theory that could lower overall prices for <br /> residents. <br /> Mr. Culver agreed, noting that could result in lower and consistent pricing versus <br /> more volatile pricing. <br /> Continuation of RFP Discussion Tonight <br /> Cart Ownership (city vs. contractor) <br /> Among questions outlined in the staff report, Mr. Johnson asked for the PWETC <br /> feedback on ownership of the carts, referencing background information included <br /> in the report as indicated, and provided by Ramsey County's consultant, Foth; and <br /> a grant program available through Ramsey County paying up to 50% of the city's <br /> cart purchase if that was the preferred option in Roseville. <br /> Member Cihacek questioned if revenue sharing monies could be used to pay for <br /> the city's cart ownership and spread out over time. <br /> Mr. Johnson responded that it was possible, but would require significant staff <br /> time in tracking that process; as well as taking into consideration the considerable <br /> mobilization charge when first rolling out the carts, with the cit potentially <br /> incurring those costs annually as well if it chose cart ownership. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that he was not sure of the Recycling Fund balance at this <br /> time without consulting with Finance Director Miller on the account; but agreed <br /> those funds could also be used. Mr. Culver advised that the theory is that if the <br /> city owns the carts, it would provide a reduction per residential unit for monthly <br /> or quarterly recycling fees. Mr. Culver noted that another option would be to <br /> keep the fund as-is to build the fund back up once the carts were purchased by the <br /> city. Mr. Culver suggested this should all be part of the financial analysis. Mr. <br /> Culver noted that the real benefit of cart ownership was that after the term is up <br /> with a contractor, the owner of the carts remained the city and there was no <br /> swapping out of carts if changing from one vendor to another. Mr. Culver noted <br /> that this also provided the city another benefit for more flexibility even if <br /> choosing to terminate a contract with a contractor earlier if needed. <br /> Page 11 of 20 <br />