CC_Minutes_2016_11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 14, 2016 Page 21 At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver agreed that not all providers offered a revenue sharing option, and that given changes in the market, it appeared to be more the exception than the rule. Councilmember Laliberte sought additional clarification on negotiations on a three- versus five-year contract term related to whether or not revenue sharing was an option. Mr. Culver reported that the original proposal was for a three-year term but prices were higher with the shorter term. In response to Councilmember Willmus’ point, Mr. Culver noted that the city had generally operated on a three-year cycle, but staff had recommended a five-year term based on previous City Council discus- sions and seeking a lower pricing model by setting the price for a longer term. Further discussion ensued regarding pricing accuracy on the RCA and attach- ments; and relevancy of and comparables with the colored sections at the table on Exhibit D between three- and five-year terms. Option 2 Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of a revised, no revenue sharing model, Agreement (Attachment D) for Comprehensive Recycling Services with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling as presented. Councilmember Willmus stated that it was important to note that a revenue shar- ing floor had been included in past contracts. Therefore, Councilmember Willmus reiterated his concern was with rates fifty cents per unit over the current contract, the city needed to be frugal based on what could be a downside in the commodities market. Councilmember Laliberte admitted she saw benefits and drawbacks with either option; and while not being a fan of taking risks on behalf of the city, based on what she was seeing in the recovering commodities market, it could prove to work in the city’s favor, but there was no guarantee at this point. Councilmember Etten stated he could not support the motion, opining that a dif- ference of $37,000 and $40,000 represented a significant amount of money over time. While admitting there may be some losses in revenue sharing for the city in some years, Councilmember Etten noted the potential for the city to make money in other years as well, such as the unexpected revenue this year compared to 2015. Even though not being much of a risk taker, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was inclined to take the risk in this case. With a combined expense of $40,000 but potential of revenue of $20,000, Councilmember McGehee opined that, with the sufficient cushion in the Recycling Fund to cover short-term set- backs, she couldn’t support this motion.