CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 33 use is good throughout the year, it is typically heavier in the spring, summer and fall months. Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Culver and Mr. Johnson for their work, opining the RFP was good as was the subsequent proposal from Eureka, even with an anticipated small increase. Given the drop in recycling material markets, Councilmember McGehee questioned if anything could be resolved with the floor price, but stated she didn’t have a problem with it. Councilmember McGehee stated she was especially happy that the park component was being initiated, and recognized it needed a lot of study but provided a nice opportunity to analyze it and change it up through working with the Parks & Recreation and Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commissions and neighbors in the immediate area. Given everything the city was trying to accomplish, Councilmember McGehee opined this was a good proposal, and expressed her interest in how the park component worked out. Councilmember Willmus stated he was still hung up with the floor price, especial- ly the potential financial risk for the city. Councilmember Willmus agreed the ad- justments taking place in the agreement with revenue sharing, savings on pro- cessing fees, and service costs per unit were reasonable. However, Councilmem- ber Willmus stated it was a bid deal for him with the floor price based on the volatility in the recycling market, and asked for a summary of staff discussions to- date with Eureka Recycling. Mr. Culver reported that staff had held considerable discussion with Eureka on the floor price and had attempted to include additional language to decrease the city’s risk associated with it if things in the commodities market took another di- ve. Mr. Culver noted that 2015 was a particularly bad year related to the glass market, and if this revenue sharing agreement model had been in place at the time, the city could have paid tens of thousands of dollars extra in 2015. However, Mr. Culver noted the market was continuing to improve, and those issues return, it may prompt additional discussions and adjustments with Eureka, the least of which could be removing glass from the recycling stream if the cost became so out of line that it was costing the city more to recycle it. Mr. Culver admitted there was some risk for the city, thus discussions on addi- tional language as requested by the city. However, Mr. Culver reported that Eu- reka had indicated that in order to increase their risk and reduce risk for the city further, they would need to increase unit prices. Given the 5% overall increase proposed for recycling costs between 2016 and 2017, and the 2% increase moving forward in the five-year contract, Mr. Culver advised that staff had felt the city could absorb that increase or negative costs in revenue sharing versus paying a definite increase in service cost. While not great by any means, Mr. Culver re- ported that with the improving commodities market, the city was actually experi- encing a $900 positive in revenue sharing in 2016 to-date.