Laserfiche WebLink
processing fee is money the City pays Xcel Energy to take their refuse derived fuel <br />and burn it for electricity. The real processing costs at the facility is in the low <br />$60/ton and the recycler is going from $58/ton to $75/ton for recyclables that have <br />revenue and have value and yet not explaining perhaps why they are increasing the <br />processing fee. To him, that huge increase in the processing fee really removes the <br />incentive for revenue sharing. He did not see supporting a revenue sharing plan <br />based on a $75/ton processing fee. <br />Member Misra thought the processing fee seemed like a big jump and she was not <br />sure why. She indicated she would also support the shorter term for the contract. <br />To complicate things further, she wondered if the City has looked at the potential <br />for changes that might come about as a result of the Federal Infrastructure Bill <br />because there is a lot of pressure to include sustainability and some recycling <br />programs in that. That would also potentially speak at keeping the contract to a <br />shorter term. She recalled that their current recycler mentioned at a presentation a <br />few years ago that was when China first put the ban on taking their recyclables and <br />did reflect this period of costs going up, but they did way over time there would be <br />some stabilization and there would be more domestic markets for this. She <br />wondered if they are starting to see that now or if there has been any ability to take <br />alook atthe possibility. She wondered if the US is rounding the corner and creating <br />markets. <br />Mr. Johnson indicated staff works pretty closely with Ramsey County because they <br />have someone that is watching the markets. The City sends Ramsey County its <br />revenue sharing data monthly so Ramsey County can compile it and look at it. The <br />most recent talks, staff knows that there is more processing coming up in the US. <br />He indicated no one knows for sure if the US is rounding the corner at this point <br />and, going forward, it looks really nice where the City sits right now. But when <br />they start looking at the additional processing fee on top of that, it does take away <br />a lot of the benefit. It is too early to tell where this is coming from. <br />Vice Chair Ficek indicated on the base collection proposal, he was looking at the <br />differences between the vendor owned or City owned cart and as he thought about <br />it, if they are pushing that cost off to the City he would have thought the price would <br />have gone done as proposer one did but he saw proposer two, when the cart moved <br />to the City, there is a thirty-three cent add in but the base cost still went up even <br />though the proposer is pushing off that part to the City. He wondered if there was <br />any comment from staff on that difference. <br />Mr. Johnson explained under most circumstances a vendor owned cart will be more <br />than a City owned cart, this happened with the last proposals as well where one <br />vendor had a cheaper vendor owned cart than a City owned cart. The City is kind <br />of at the situation again where staff is seeing the same couple of proposers and the <br />same scenario. There was not a lot of detail in the proposals that would have added <br />a lot more detail into that other than the pricing of it was passed onto the City within <br />their proposals themselves. <br />Page 8 of 10 <br />