Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Cihacek asked if the replacement cost projected included an accelerated rate <br /> for broken carts (e.g. storm damage or vehicle collision) or if a higher percentage <br /> was applied so the cost reflected an actual attrition rate versus only the <br /> replacement rate. <br /> Mr. Johnson clarified that was just the replacement rate itself, with an anticipated <br /> 10% cart replacement allotment annually due to breakage, with staff not making <br /> any assumptions related to natural disaster losses of carts. Mr. Johnson estimated <br /> 11,000 carts were currently in service citywide. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that the projections provided in the presentation charts were <br /> for the purpose of example only; and noted staff would work with the city's <br /> Finance Department and research other vendors and their experiences to estimate <br /> the percentage of annual cart loss and replacement that should be planned for. <br /> At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson advised that the initial contract had <br /> a built-in 1,000 carts allotted. <br /> At the request of Member Lenz, Mr. Johnson clarified that whoever the contractor <br /> was, whether or not the city owned the carts or the vendor, the contractor would <br /> manage and store the carts at their location, including roll-out, and advised that <br /> the city would not be responsible for storing carts at city facilities. <br /> Member Lenz noted among the cost proposals, there was a significant price <br /> difference in the city versus contractor owned carts; and expressed concern in <br /> following staff s analysis at this point. <br /> Member Wozniak asked if the cart cost was dependent on frequency of service or <br /> if that frequency level would require larger carts; and asked how that affected the <br /> cost of acquisition initially. <br /> Mr. Johnson responded that, based on the research to-date by Ramsey County and <br /> city staff, if service were accelerated to weekly pick-up the same sized carts <br /> would be used. Mr. Johnson noted that one of the benefits of weekly service was <br /> the anticipation of potential recovery increasing, with more volume, but clarified <br /> there was no intent to downsize cart sizes for weekly service. <br /> Mr. Johnson continued the presentation with a cost matrix for each proposer and <br /> their various options, and criteria used in that comparison. <br /> Mr. Culver clarified the baseline used (current recycling program with bi-weekly <br /> service for single family homes, weekly service to multi-family buildings of more <br /> than four units needing fewer carts) and key differences and intent of the RFP to <br /> allow viable comparisons. <br /> Page 9 of 19 <br />