My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0912_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0912_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:41:26 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:04:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
such agreements, change, expire or are re-negotiated, current copies of all agreements <br />shall be provided to the City." Waste Management feels that our agreements with our <br />vendors for sale of recyclable materials are confidential and vital to our recycling <br />business. We negotiate agreements for all material received not just the City of <br />Roseville's so ou� pricing is based oi�those quantities. <br />We also do not feel that the Marketing Agreements are even necessary information to the <br />City of Roseville. The RFP goes onto state that revenue sharing should be based on <br />published indexes rather than actual sale amount. Marketing agreements are not <br />applicable to this contract. <br />Revenue Sharing <br />Page 29 Section 8.04. Revenue sharing requires use of published indexed versus actual <br />sale price. Waste Management participates in what is called hedging to guarantee both a <br />stable price and a stable market. We do not always get the published rate, but we are <br />guaranteed a r��arket for our materials. We do not feel that published indexes are valid to <br />revenue sharing. Revenue sharing should be based on what the facility actually gets for <br />the material not a published rate. <br />Processing Facilities <br />Page 25 Section 7.01. The section on materials processing specifies that "The Contractor <br />shall dispose of no more than 5% of material (by weight) as process residuals as part of <br />recyclable materials processing operations." Waste Management's processing facility <br />processes approximately 14,000 tons of recyclable materials each month. The recycling <br />comes from programs that are source separated, dual stream, and single strearx�, multi- <br />family progran�s, comfaa�rcial businesses, and so�rcc separated colnrnercial fibers. We <br />have done extensive studies of our facility aasc� have dete��ni�led that we currently ope��at� <br />at approximately a 6 percent residual for the whole plant. 'This is t��e same plant that has <br />been processing Roseville's recycling since 2001. <br />Curbside Dual Stream Collectivn Scenario <br />Page 44 Section 10.06. If Contractors propose under dual stream scenario, they should <br />assume materials would be both collected and processed in a dual stream mode....It is not <br />acceptable to propose to collect materials in a dual stream mode and then process them in <br />a single stream mode. The City's current program is a dual stream program. Paper <br />products are sorted across Waste Management's Single SortSM line and rigid� are sorted <br />on our rigid only line. The draft RFP as it stands states that this method is unacceptable <br />to the city. This indicates that our current program has been unacceptable to the City of <br />Roseville. That is not the feedback that we have received previously from the City <br />Council. <br />Waste Management is currently providing recycle service to 71 coi�iracts in the Twin <br />Cities area. All of the material that Waste Management collects is processed through our <br />recycling facility. These communities are satisfied with the efficient, safe recycle <br />progran� that Waste Management provides. We have invested r���r $10 million in <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.