Laserfiche WebLink
Costs criteria and comparison included the city's revenue share percentage, <br /> service frequency, cart ownership, contract terms, processing costs per ton of <br /> materials collected, tipping fees based on the 2015 commodity share averages. <br /> Discussion included proposals providing flat fees versus floor prices without <br /> further explanation by some of the proposers or not applicable for some proposers <br /> should commodities not cover the cost of processing. Mr. Johnson advised that <br /> determining whether revenue share would be done quarterly or monthly would be <br /> part of any future negotiation process and that detail would be determined later. <br /> Mr. Culver noted there was a risk for revenue share especially without a floor <br /> commodity identified due to industry fluctuations and recycling materials sale <br /> prices depending on the national and/or international market for those goods. <br /> Based on that consideration, Mr. Culver opined that proposer 1 and 3 put the city <br /> in a much better position to absorb the risk with lower processing costs proposed. <br /> Mr. Johnson explained that the 2015 year was used to base revenue share numbers <br /> on given their fluctuations and market impacts since 2010, anticipating a <br /> hopefully slow, steady growth as a starting point for this contract term. <br /> Mr. Johnson continued the presentation comparing costs for three year and five <br /> year terms from each proposer and their options for various components, with or <br /> without park service and including ownership of carts, contract terms, pick-up <br /> frequency, with and without park pick-up and options for logistics of park service <br /> and corresponding schedules. <br /> Regarding next steps, Mr. Johnson advised that after tonight's meeting and <br /> PWETC feedback, staff would then move forward to the City Council seeking <br /> their authorization to start negotiations with the identified selected contractor. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding container types and sizes for park service; <br /> consideration of the challenges for park service; and areas yet to be determined <br /> based on the negotiation process once a contractor is chosen. <br /> Member Seigler suggested park service costs could be reduced by programs such <br /> as the "Adopt-A-Highway"program or Scout Troops or churches volunteering by <br /> park and participating by receiving money for aluminum cans while they brought <br /> bottles to a central location in the various parks. Member Seigler opined this <br /> could provide those groups with a revenue source and save the city a significant <br /> amount of money based on the time as represented in the average annual base <br /> pick-up costs versus the annual cost for park recycling. <br /> Member Lenz expressed concerns with contamination of recyclables beyond what <br /> is now even found. <br /> Page 10 of 19 <br />