CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 34 Councilmember Willmus noted there had been a significant decline in the market during part of that period. Councilmember Willmus asked if the city had any way out the contract if it start- ed to experience significant increases in the floor price that the city had to pay; or the contract was unbreakable for the proposed full five-year term. Mr. Culver stated it would not be considered a breach of contract if prices began to sour, but advised at that time, the city would initiate preliminary discussions with Eureka to adjust and possibly eliminate materials from the recycling stream to control those costs. Mr. Culver noted there were clauses within the proposed contract addressing remediation using a professional mediation service. City Attorney Gaughan noted this proceeding was addressed in the legal action clause in the contract. Councilmember McGehee sought clarification that the city’s choices were to ei- ther accept the risk or pay a higher fee. Councilmember McGehee sought addi- tional detail on the process the city would need to undergo if commodity prices soured. Mr. Culver reviewed the process, but noted Eureka would be the expert on ramifi- cations if that situation occurred. Mr. Culver noted there were other consequenc- es to consider, such as if someone continued to recycle glass after it was no longer accepted, it would increase the city’s residual rates and impact costs. Mr. Culver noted that the City of Roseville continues to have high participation rates with low residual rates based on national comparisons. Mr. Culver advised that this al- so allowed Roseville to keep its very low recycling rates compared with other Minnesota communities. As staff negotiated pricing and risks with Eureka, Mr. Culver advised that Eureka indicated the market and themselves as a business would be insignificant trouble beyond the City of Roseville if the market dropped considerably, creating signifi- cant costs in processing costs. Mr. Culver reported that the City of St. Paul’s re- cent renewal had similar provisions at 80% with no floor within their contract. Councilmember Willmus reiterated that he continued to have a problem with the city being asked to sign an open-ended contract without knowing costs, making him inclined to not support a motion approving the agreement. Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of an Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Re- cycling (Attachment A).