Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culver noted the feedback received from the recent community survey and <br /> citizen desire to expand recycling in parks, in addition to the mandates from <br /> Ramsey County encouraging municipalities to increase those recycling efforts. <br /> Mr. Culver admitted that staff found a considerable amount of recycling in <br /> garbage from city parks, and noted it was an ongoing challenge to address and <br /> balance those efforts, anticipating that contamination would continue to be a risk. <br /> However, Mr. Culver noted that to-date, Roseville has a good reputation for low <br /> residuals in the waste stream, and advised a goal would be that park recycling not <br /> hinder that high rate. Mr. Culver suggested it may require experimentation on <br /> where containers were located, differences in remote parks versus the heavily- <br /> used Central Park, frequency of pick-up depending on the use frequency at each <br /> park. Mr. Culver stated it would be a learning curve based on those experiences <br /> moving forward, including how frequently for pick-up at parks, the number and <br /> location of bins, and other considerations to reduce the risks. <br /> Member Lenz opined it would require a massive public education process. <br /> Member Seigler suggested signing near trash containers explaining recycling <br /> options and locations of containers (e.g. parking lots). <br /> Continuing the contract terms for five year consideration and various proposals <br /> and options, Mr. Johnson reviewed the cost details for that longer term with or <br /> without the park component, ultimately changing the ranking of proposers <br /> accordingly. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding park collection fees based on the vendor retrieving <br /> carts or city staff bringing carts to a central location for vendor pick-up. <br /> Mr. Johnson clarified that the RFP designated the contractor retrieving materials <br /> and carts, opining that provided valuable information for the vendor to perform <br /> versus park staff doing so for central pick up at a parking lot. Mr. Johnson noted <br /> costs were reflected accordingly for that service type and while noting recycling <br /> costs at parks would be costly, he admitted he hadn't expected such a big swing <br /> between high and low vendors and the wide range of costs. Mr. Johnson noted <br /> the biggest difference appeared in retrievals from parks and pathways. <br /> At the request of Member Heimerl, Mr. Johnson noted the additional slide <br /> showing values applied and cost differences for proposers in using biodiesel fuel <br /> or CNG, as well as zero waste events and revenue share; resulting in a shift from <br /> one apparent low proposer to another. Mr. Johnson thanked Member Heimerl for <br /> suggesting that additional detail. <br /> Mr. Johnson noted actual cart pick-up on trails proved the most expensive <br /> component versus parking lot pick-up or building walls-up. However, Mr. <br /> Johnson noted if city staff collected recyclables from trails or brought carts to a <br /> central location, it now saved $80,000 to $90,000. <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br />