2016-06-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. Recycling Services Proposals Review and Recommendations Mr. Johnson provided a presentation on 2017 recycling services proposals received, reviewed and staff recommendations. Mr. Johnson noted that at this point, while four recycling contractors had provided proposals, tonight's discussion would identify contractors as "Vendor A,", Vendor B," "C" or"D." The four contractors providing a proposal, in no particular order, included Waste Management, Walters Recycling & Refuse, Republic Services, and Eureka Recycling, d/b/a Neighborhood Recycling Corporation. Mr. Johnson's presentation provided an overview of the Request for Proposals (RFP)process, review criteria, best value procurement process and review of proposals received, cart ownership options, three or five year contract terms and associated costs, and scoring used during the review of proposals. In addition to the contact term and differentials, Mr. Johnson noted other value added criteria included weekly versus bi-weekly curbside pick-up, zero waste event staffing, cost for the addition of organic curbside collection, and educational efforts for residents. Discussion ensued as to the PWETC's role in the process in making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Culver noted staff would be making a recommendation to the City Council, but encouraged the PWETC to do so as well, or at least provide their feedback on the results of the RFP. Mr. Johnson's presentation provided contract terms and components reviewed in detail for each proposer 1 through 4; costs for city ownership versus contractor ownership of carts and logistics for the contractor to store carts and perform roll- out either way. Discussion continued with amortizing cart costs and cart life estimated at ten-years, investment costs and depreciation of the carts over that timeframe; and various cost scenarios for the initial cart cost and savings for repurchasing carts after year ten. At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver explained that what was unique about the Recycling Fund at this point was there were very minor capital costs within those fund costs since the city didn't own the carts. If the city was to take on cart ownership, Mr. Culver noted there would be a significant capital cost to the city at some point to replace carts, and additional risk to replace broken carts during the ten year life span before replacement at year 11, or for any other damage (e.g. storms) that would also become a cost for the city. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted there would be the need for an annual fund collection to build up that capital fund to make those capital purchases. At this point, Mr. Culver noted staff anticipated Ramsey County's grant to support 50% of the initial purchase prices for carts to offset that initial cost. However, Mr. Culver noted that the city didn't know if that program or a similar one would be available at the end of the ten year timeframe; and therefore needed to project actual potential costs at that time. Page 8 of 19