CC_Minutes_2016_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 18, 2016 Page 17 the senior population, as an example Councilmember Etten noted recent Parks & Recreation program focus and response far those seniars, when resurfacing tennis courts by adding Pickleball lines to allow that activity on those courts as well. As noted at the conclusion of City Manager Trudgeon's presentation, Mayor Roe reviewed next steps and upcoming opportunities for public comment. 14. Business Items (Action Items) a. Recycling Service Proposal Public Works Director Marc Culver briefly introduced the presentation and rec- ognized the incredible amount of work by Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson over the last months and his summarization of an amazing amount of information resulting from four very good proposals received. Mr. Culver noted the current recycling contract expires the end of 2016; and asked that the City Council would provide guidance to staff on which option(s) to pursue and to authorize final ne- gotiations with those options as indicated. Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson Mr. Johnson summarized components of the review, including criteria, proposals, scoring, costs for cart ownership, and actual service costs for curbside recycling, with and without the addition of park recycling service. Mr. Johnson reviewed each proposal and their various proposals and comparisons of each proposal from a three year or five year contract term, and with or without the park component and/or cart ownership by the city. Mr. Johnson's presentation included the best value scoring criteria performed without fees addressing project capability, community values, value added for each company, performance re- views; and then review adding their proposed fees and average scores. Mr. Johnson noted maximum points resulting for each company and their shifts when adding various components. Mr. Johnson addressed cart ownership for their initial purchase price and invest- ment by the city, and with a ten-year cart life, the addition of a CIP item for pur- chase of replacement carts after that point, and needed reserves to facilitate that replacement cost. Mr. Johnson reviewed the various proposal scenarios for each firm for the various services they proposed, including service frequency, cart ownership, contract term, curbside collection, and multi-family collection costs, revenue share if any based on 2015 known data and any potential costs to the city in not meeting the commodity price compared to processing costs, and their total annual collection costs per firm and per proposal within those four firms. In concluding the top firms based on all criteria was 1) Eureka Recycling followed by 2) Republic.