CC_Minutes_2016_11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 14, 2016 Page 20 Councilmember Willmus noted where the disclaimer came into play, whether re- lying on past performance or not, stating his concern was with the length of the contract at five years versus the current three year contract. Councilmember Willmus noted his discomfort in not knowing the city’s costs going forward and being able to fix those costs. However, Councilmember Willmus noted that the Eureka proposal without revenue share was still under the proposals received from other firms responding. Mr. Culver concurred, noting Attachment B provided those other prices for the same term, with the next lowest proposal at $3.62 per unit, still over $1.00 higher and not including revenue sharing in their models. In his research of metropolitan peer communities, Mr. Culver opined that $2.56 per unit as proposed by Eureka was still a very good price. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Culver reviewed annual service costs shown on Attachment B under Options 2 and 2 based on last minute negotiations over the last few weeks, with some of those numbers continuing to fluctuate to a small degree. Mr. Culver assured the City Council that those minor differences would be refined with final negotiations and adjusted accordingly in the final con- tract agreement. While understanding Councilmember Willmus’ concerns, Councilmember McGehee noted the need to finalize this contract, and wasn’t sure an additional $40,000 cost to the city was called for to avoid the risk if the recycling market completely declined. Councilmember McGehee referenced the good and fair re- lationship to-date between Eureka and the city; and expressed hope that the final details could be worked out accordingly. At the request of Councilmember McGehee as to what other communities did in terms of revenue sharing, Mr. Culver reported that his research had found many still working on the older model with the floor . Mr. Culver reported that the City of St. Paul had just recently negotiated a contract with Eureka without a floor. Mr. Culver noted that the Walter’s proposal did not have a floor either; and opined that this new model appeared to recognize the risk involved in the recy- cling commodity market in today’s world. Referencing Councilmember Etten’s question related to impacts to utility rates for Roseville residential customers, Mr. Culver reported that his in-house discussions tonight indicated the need for further refinement in curbside recycling rates that will be presented later on tonight’s agenda depending on the City Council’s cho- sen option tonight. If the City Council chose the no revenue sharing model, Mr. Culver advised that staff would recommend a $7/quarter fee versus the $6.50 quarterly fee proposed on the fee schedule at this time for 2017; both up from the current $5.60 quarterly fee.