Laserfiche WebLink
Member Seigler noted the need to realize a return and opined it didn't make sense <br /> if there was no return, especially with the other concerns with additional <br /> manpower required, refuse trucks idling; and reiterated his interest in phasing in <br /> the park component to achieve the highest cost versus benefit by phasing in the <br /> program if and when it grows. <br /> Chair Cihacek noted the PWETC's interest in further discussion of implementing <br /> the park program by phasing it in based on the highest density parks (e.g. Central <br /> Park) and phasing other parks later in the year, with staff negotiating that phasing <br /> with the chosen proposer. <br /> Mr. Culver cautioned that a reduced scope for park recycling could change the <br /> proposal numbers and contractor ranking. <br /> Specific to the city versus contractor ownership of carts, Mr. Culver sought <br /> specific feedback on that element alone, noting there could be significant annual <br /> savings but adding in capital expense and removing some risk. Mr. Culver asked <br /> if the PWETC felt it was worth it for the contractor to retain ownership. <br /> Member Lenz asked if all vendor equipment was the same when picking up the <br /> carts; and if that would impact the life of or type of cart used from one contract to <br /> the next, and impacting ownership risks and costs. Member Lenz cautioned that <br /> technology continued to change in that respect as well. <br /> Mr. Culver admitted that was a valid point, but expressed his understanding that <br /> the equipment was compatible and bins were shaped accordingly. Mr. Culver <br /> noted if the five year contract was decided upon, future RFP's could take that into <br /> consideration. <br /> Chair Cihacek stated his interest in phasing in cart ownership by the city over five <br /> years to allow available funding for cart replacement, since cash out on the front <br /> end may not end up making sense. Chair Cihacek also noted revenue sharing <br /> wasn't a given and may also impact accruing recycling funds for the future, and <br /> uncertainties with Ramsey County grant funds available for cart purchase. <br /> Since the grant funds covered only half the price of cart purchase now, Chair <br /> Cihacek confirmed that Member Seigler supported city-owned carts contingent <br /> upon receiving grant funds. <br /> Mr. Johnson opined, while not 100% sure of the grant, he was fairly certain of its <br /> receipt, since Ramsey County had just purchased a considerable number of carts <br /> for the City of St. Paul's recycling program. <br /> Member Lenz sought clarification on the timeframe for grant application and <br /> contractor negotiations, with a January 2017 new contract start date; and asked <br /> whether six months allowed sufficient time for both of those components. <br /> Page 16 of 19 <br />