|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
- Introduction / Call Roll / Swearing in of New Members
Chair Cihacek called the meeting
to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and at his request, Public Works Director
Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Chair
Brian Cihacek; Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz; and Members Joe Wozniak,
John Heimerl, Kody Thurnau, and Duane Seigler
Excused: Member
Thomas Trainor
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver; Environmental
Engineer Ryan Johnson
- Public Comments
None.
- Approval of May 24,2016 Meeting Minutes
Comments and corrections to
draft minutes had been submitted by PWETC commissioners prior to tonight’s
meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the
meeting materials; with Member Heimerl’s corrections submitted as a bench
handout at the meeting as part of the record.
Member Lenz moved, Member Heimerl
seconded, approval of the May 24, 2016 meeting minutes as amended.
Corrections:
§
Page 6, Line 231 (Heimerl)
Correct to read: “…replacement
trees versus expending [cash] in lieu of [planting
trees.]
§
Page 10, Line 421 (Cihacek)
Typographical Correction:
Change “phosphorus” to “nitrates”
§
Page 11, Lines 455-456 (Heimerl)
Correct to read: “…noting that
the City of Roseville was the recipient of a lot of [sediment] coming through
the system from Shoreview.”
§
Page 11, Line 458 (Heimerl)
Correct to read: “Mr. Johnson
opined that they are as aggressive, and mentioned several joint…”
§
Page 13, Lines 547 - 548 (Heimerl)
Correct to read: “…A-Line[ bus]
rapid bus transit came and passenger numbers
§
Page 13, Line 550 (Heimerl)
Correct to read: “Green” Line
rather than “Grey” Line
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Communication Items
Public Works Director Culver
provided additional comments and a brief review and update on projects and
maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated June 28, 2016.
Discussion included recognition
by commissioners that even though funding for some of the shorter
sidewalk/pathway connections was not coming from Safe Routes to Schools,
similar criteria was being used; identification on the map of missing gaps
and scheduled pathway infrastructure improvements as part of the annual
construction season when possible. Staff clarified that some of the
connections had been made through use of remaining Park Renewal Program bond
funds and timing for that spending obligation as part of bond protocol for
2016 and 2017 as possible.
Specific to last month’s tree
replacement discussion, clarification was sought from staff on what was actually
involved in relocating trees, their size and species; and whether during mass
grading efforts; and success rates in moving larger trees depending on the
size of their root structure and overall health.
- Stormwater Impact Fund
Mr. Culver deferred to Environmental
Engineer Ryan Johnson for this presentation of a proposed Draft Impact Fund
(policy) and Draft Management Standards.
Mr. Johnson advised that while
current city’s stormwater management policies and practices provided
standards and guidance to avoid degradation of water bodies, parts were still
missing and needed updating, thus staff’s recommendation for implementing a
Stormwater Impact Fund. Mr. Johnson noted this fund would allow residents
that apply for a Residential Stormwater Permit (ReSWP) to purchase treatment
through a city-installed regional system in lieu of providing treatment
onsite through rain barrels, raingardens, or other site management systems.
Mr. Johnson noted the fund would also allow developers unable to treat
stormwater onsite to purchase treatment credits based on a dollar per cubic
foot rate. Mr. Johnson noted there was no city current cit policy in place
to address those situations, whether due to site constraints, contaminated
soil, or no available storm sewer system.
Mr. Johnson noted regional
watershed districts had similar requirements for a fund as developers met
certain criteria if no optional treatment methods are available. Mr. Johnson
noted this fund would allow the pooling of management funds to mitigate drainage
issues through a larger area or region that would also help mitigate
stormwater management issues on a particular site paying into the fund.
Mr. Johnson’s presentation
highlighted a draft policy, mitigation sequencing, fund tracking, and next
steps.
Mr. Johnson advised that during
his tenure with the city, he had only been aware of 1 or 2 development sites
that had no feasible way for the development to proceed and meet total
stormwater management requirements. Mr. Johnson further advised that the
draft policy was intended to address the following:
§
Provide a stormwater alternative for permitted projects that
can’t mitigate onsite;
§
Provide a stormwater alternative for residential stormwater
permits (ReSWP’s) for properties that meet standards set in city code; and
§
Suggested a proposed rate of $15/cubic foot based on average
citywide stormwater projects to-date.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver clarified that this addressed those properties developed 20-30
years ago or before, and where improvements or development could not comply
with the current impervious surface coverage on residential properties at 30%
or less allowable. At the further request of Member Seigler, Mr. Johnson
affirmed that this draft policy was comparable to those of surrounding
communities.
Member Seigler provided an
example of lots similar to his personal situation, where ramblers built in
the 1950’s or 1960’s with a desire of current owners to expand the homes
and/or garages to a minimum two-stall garage, and questioned if this proposed
policy allowed reasonable recourse for them to do so.
Mr. Culver responded that staff
recognized there were numerous older lots were smaller and didn’t meet
current city standards due to those prior lot sizes. Unlike the City of
Edina with larger homes but lots wider or deeper, Mr. Culver noted some of
these initial options were developed about ten years ago to address some of
those limitations.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Johnson clarified that this proposed policy applied to residential
properties established twenty years ago or before; and further clarified that
commercial lots used design standards for 85% impervious coverage due to the
nature of those businesses.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Johnson provided a more detailed explanation of how staff identified an
average citywide stormwater calculation for larger area projects based on
what the city has experienced for those projects in recent years (e.g. Upper
Villa, Sherran/Dellwood, Corpus Christi Church projects). Mr. Johnson noted
that this impact fund would provide funding for those larger projects that
would benefit the entire city as well as developments in the immediate area.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Johnson clarified that residents would pay a one-time fee and would
actually prove more beneficial and easier than maintenance of rain gardens or
recertification costs of those installations.
Continuing with his presentation,
Mr. Johnson reviewed mitigation sequencing and stormwater districts in the
city. Mr. Johnson noted that staff’s suggestion was to apply that funding as
near to development sites as possible to alleviate stormwater issues on the
site and the immediate area, or at least within the immediate drainage area
or that particular watershed district at a minimum to protect major water
bodies and address ongoing flooding areas to lessen the overall impact.
Specific to the upper limit for
impervious coverage on residential lots, Mr. Culver explained that the city’s
Public Works and Engineering staff was currently working with the city’s
Community Development Department to modify current zoning ordinance language
to address a standard or upper cap (currently 30%) for impervious coverage.
Mr. Culver opined that from his personal perspective, he thought 50%
impervious coverage limit was more reasonable; but advised that needed
further research and vetting by the Planning Commission and City Council
along with public input before any decision was made.
Mr. Johnson’s presentation
continued with tracking of the proposed impact fund through creation of a
special code and database for tracking, whether minor or major districts and their
respective priorities and their location within the city and/or watershed
district as regional benefits and localized flooding area addressed by
priority.
For next steps, Mr. Johnson
sought further feedback from the PWETC for presentation to the City Council
in July.
Chair Cihacek asked how the
Impact Fund was going to fund mitigation steps if those funds were not
comparable to costs.
Mr. Johnson advised that the fund
took into consideration regional impact funds with profits intentionally
built into smaller projects with tighter constraints, allowing leveraging for
larger projects.
With the observation by Chair
Cihacek that the numbers would only work on large-level sequencing, Mr.
Johnson agreed, noting that the intent was to look at larger mitigation
efforts that were not currently cost-effective for the city to pursue under
realistic budget constraints. However, Mr. Johnson noted the advantages for
the broader community as those larger projects are implemented, in addition
to reducing maintenance costs for the city, such as re-inspection of smaller
best management practice (BMP) efforts (e.g. raingardens) and their
recertification.
Mr. Culver further clarified that
a likely scenario for sequencing would be triggered by the city as its
stormwater mitigation requirements for a specific project were addressed. At
that point, Mr. Culver noted funding could be allocated from the Impact Fund
to allow a mitigation feature to be larger and therefore treat more water,
and provide a better cost benefit for a broader area.
Understanding that it may be
years before the city was able to get to smaller projects based on sequencing
and limited time spans, Chair Cihacek questioned if this fund was a good deal
if raingardens or other mitigation efforts providing immediate stormwater
management were easier to implement and more cost-effective.
Mr. Culver noted that was a good
point, but also addressed some of those smaller mitigation efforts that were
permitted when triggered by a structure expansion and may work in year one or
shortly thereafter, but after that without continual monitoring by city staff
and upkeep by residents once their final permit and Certificate of Occupancy
were approved, there was no guarantee they remained effective. Mr. Culver
noted that while the city was attempting to implement a five-year
recertification program it was still pending, and was proving to be a massive
effort. Mr. Culver listed several situations beyond rain garden maintenance,
such as removal of rain barrels by those residents or new purchasers of a
home, allowing drainage on adjacent properties, ineffective or inoperable
rain gutter installations. Mr. Culver noted these all impacted mitigation
efforts in an area, and concerned not only that property owner but those adjacent
as well, and ultimately the broader drainage area. While those smaller
devices can help in the bigger picture, Mr. Culver noted if individuals were
not committed to those devices and their maintenance, they didn’t provide any
long-term benefit. Mr. Culver recognized that some residents were passionate
about maintaining the devices, but for those not as committed or selling
their home, it was necessary for staff to monitor the devices before the
five-year recertification time, and re-educate those new owners on the
operation of the system. To address those less-effective and smaller
devices, Mr. Culver advised that other options were being pursued.
Chair Cihacek stated his
agreement with the principle, but questioned if the cost issue was simply being
moved elsewhere, and whether or not it needed to be addressed from a zoning
perspective or other conceptualization, such as a balance between
accessibility and the investment and pragmatics of reality. Chair Cihacek
stated that was a policy concern from his perspective, and how to adjust
other city policies to maintain good water standards and recognizing there
are significant problems requiring this mitigation and change to what is no
longer working. Chair Cihacek asked if this Impact Fund and policy produced
what the city needed from the perspective of efficiencies and effectiveness
of long-term resources.
Mr. Culver expressed staff’s
appreciation of tonight’s PWETC feedback and the points raised. Mr. Culver
agreed there was a need to balance long- and short-term benefits including
addressing additional impervious on a residential site or finding a more
ideal situation.
Using his personal property as an
example, Member Seigler again noted a lot of residents having extreme
easements that couldn’t be counted as part of the impervious calculations,
causing them to be over the 30%. Member Seigler opined it was ridiculous for
those residents to pay money into this fund when they were already willing to
spend money to improve Roseville’s housing stock and increase its tax base
accordingly. Member Seigler noted the cost for this fund may be sufficient
enough for a resident to avoid improving their housing stock, and look to
another community for a home. Member Seigler further opined if residents
were willing to improve their homes and increase its value, thereby
increasing property taxes, the city should take that additional money to
apply to stormwater relief. Member Seigler reiterated there may be
impediments to additional green space on a property that can’t be taken into
consideration in calculating impervious surfaces; and thereby causing
homeowners to move elsewhere.
Mr. Culver recognized the points
made by Member Seigler; but clarified this impervious coverage requirement
for mitigation if over 30% is currently in city code, and was not proposed
for changes. Mr. Culver further clarified that this addressed homes already
twenty years old or older and was being enforced accordingly. Mr. Culver
noted this option was an alternative to that requirement, and an entirely
different conversation would be needed if city code standards were proposed
to be changed to remove that requirement altogether. Mr. Culver noted this
proposal was to modify those standards to allow a resident to purchase
credits.
Specific to Member Seigler’s
personal property situation, Mr. Culver clarified if there was a utility
drainage easement on his property, the square footage of that easement area
was indeed counted in calculations. Mr. Culver noted calculations are based from
neighbor to neighbor parcels or from one property line to another property
line, not between the property line and curb where an easement would be
located.
Member Seigler questioned why the
property calculations were not measured from the road; with Mr. Culver
responding that the road was not the property of the property owner, but the
city. Mr. Culver suggested Member Seigler consult with staff outside meeting
confines to address specific square footage outside right-of-way square
footages.
Member Thurnau asked staff for
examples of partnership opportunities with watershed districts or other
jurisdictions or agencies outside city limits to address regional drainage
issues but of benefit to a larger, non-jurisdictional area.
Mr. Johnson reviewed some of
those more recent partnership opportunities the city had used for regional
drainage mitigation by providing cost participation by the city as an
example. As noted by Member Thurnau, Mr. Johnson agreed that drainage and
stormwater issues didn’t respect city limit boundaries. However, Mr. Johnson
noted the limits for the city at this time and going forward without a fund
such as the proposed Impact Fund and policy to fund or participate in those
larger projects. Therefore, Mr. Johnson noted the current practice or
priority consideration is to retain the majority of those funds locally, but
noted when possible the city would participate in those cost-share
opportunities with other agencies for stormwater treatment as funds allowed.
Chair Cihacek asked if the intent
was to use the fund as a replacement or for allocation from other funding
resources.
Mr. Culver agreed the funds would
allow some flexibility for expanding stormwater treatment and projects that
the city would otherwise be unable to do, and enlarge mitigation efforts and
programs accordingly.
Specific to sequencing projects
outside the city addressed by Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver noted it was only
logical to connect the dots and address those bodies of water that the city’s
stormwater drained into even if outside the city, still benefiting everyone.
Mr. Culver noted this would be based on those water resources of concern that
Roseville stormwater flowed into and based on current versus future
sequencing consideration and as permitted by the City Council depending on
the situation.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Culver agreed to review those areas highlighted on Attachment A to
further clarify the language.
Mr. Culver thanked the PWETC for
their comments, and sought direction from the body as to whether they wished
to make a formal recommendation to the City Council, or if staff should
direct their comments to them accordingly.
Member Wozniak stated his support
for the Impact Fund as an alternative; and encouraged staff to continue
discussion with the Community Development department to identify the maximum
impervious coverage percentage.
- Recycling Services Proposals Review and
Recommendations
Mr. Johnson provided a
presentation on 2017 recycling services proposals received, reviewed and
staff recommendations. Mr. Johnson noted that at this point, while four
recycling contractors had provided proposals, tonight’s discussion would
identify contractors as “Vendor A,”, Vendor B,” “C” or “D.” The four
contractors providing a proposal, in no particular order, included Waste
Management, Walters Recycling & Refuse, Republic Services, and Eureka
Recycling, d/b/a Neighborhood Recycling Corporation.
Mr. Johnson’s presentation
provided an overview of the Request for Proposals (RFP) process, review
criteria, best value procurement process and review of proposals received,
cart ownership options, three or five year contract terms and associated
costs, and scoring used during the review of proposals. In addition to the
contact term and differentials, Mr. Johnson noted other value added criteria
included weekly versus bi-weekly curbside pick-up, zero waste event staffing,
cost for the addition of organic curbside collection, and educational efforts
for residents.
Discussion ensued as to the PWETC’s
role in the process in making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr.
Culver noted staff would be making a recommendation to the City Council, but
encouraged the PWETC to do so as well, or at least provide their feedback on
the results of the RFP.
Mr. Johnson’s presentation
provided contract terms and components reviewed in detail for each proposer 1
through 4; costs for city ownership versus contractor ownership of carts and
logistics for the contractor to store carts and perform roll-out either way.
Discussion continued with amortizing cart costs and cart life estimated at
ten-years, investment costs and depreciation of the carts over that
timeframe; and various cost scenarios for the initial cart cost and savings
for repurchasing carts after year ten.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Culver explained that what was unique about the Recycling Fund at this
point was there were very minor capital costs within those fund costs since
the city didn’t own the carts. If the city was to take on cart ownership,
Mr. Culver noted there would be a significant capital cost to the city at
some point to replace carts, and additional risk to replace broken carts
during the ten year life span before replacement at year 11, or for any other
damage (e.g. storms) that would also become a cost for the city. Therefore,
Mr. Culver noted there would be the need for an annual fund collection to
build up that capital fund to make those capital purchases. At this point,
Mr. Culver noted staff anticipated Ramsey County’s grant to support 50% of
the initial purchase prices for carts to offset that initial cost. However,
Mr. Culver noted that the city didn’t know if that program or a similar one
would be available at the end of the ten year timeframe; and therefore needed
to project actual potential costs at that time.
Chair Cihacek asked if the
replacement cost projected included an accelerated rate for broken carts
(e.g. storm damage or vehicle collision) or if a higher percentage was
applied so the cost reflected an actual attrition rate versus only the
replacement rate.
Mr. Johnson clarified that was
just the replacement rate itself; with an anticipated 10% cart replacement
allotment annually due to breakage, with staff not making any assumptions
related to natural disaster losses of carts. Mr. Johnson estimated 11,000
carts were currently in service citywide.
Mr. Culver advised that the
projections provided in the presentation charts were for the purpose of
example only; and noted staff would work with the city’s Finance Department
and research other vendors and their experiences to estimate the percentage
of annual cart loss and replacement that should be planned for.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Johnson advised that the initial contract had a built-in 1,000 carts
allotted.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Johnson clarified that whoever the contractor was, whether or not the
city owned the carts or the vendor, the contractor would manage and store the
carts at their location, including roll-out, and advised that the city would
not be responsible for storing carts at city facilities.
Member Lenz noted among the cost
proposals, there was a significant price difference in the city versus
contractor owned carts; and expressed concern in following staff’s analysis
at this point.
Member Wozniak asked if the cart
cost was dependent on frequency of service or if that frequency level would
require larger carts; and asked how that affected the cost of acquisition
initially.
Mr. Johnson responded that, based
on the research to-date by Ramsey County and city staff, if service were
accelerated to weekly pick-up the same sized carts would be used. Mr.
Johnson noted that one of the benefits of weekly service was the anticipation
of potential recovery increasing, with more volume, but clarified there was
no intent to downsize cart sizes for weekly service.
Mr. Johnson continued the
presentation with a cost matrix for each proposer and their various options,
and criteria used in that comparison.
Mr. Culver clarified the baseline
used (current recycling program with bi-weekly service for single family
homes, weekly service to multi-family buildings of more than four units
needing fewer carts) and key differences and intent of the RFP to allow
viable comparisons.
Costs criteria and comparison
included the city’s revenue share percentage, service frequency, cart
ownership, contract terms, processing costs per ton of materials collected,
tipping fees based on the 2015 commodity share averages.
Discussion included proposals
providing flat fees versus floor prices without further explanation by some
of the proposers or not applicable for some proposers should commodities not
cover the cost of processing. Mr. Johnson advised that determining whether
revenue share would be done quarterly or monthly would be part of any future
negotiation process and that detail would be determined later.
Mr. Culver noted there was a risk
for revenue share especially without a floor commodity identified due to
industry fluctuations and recycling materials sale prices depending on the
national and/or international market for those goods. Based on that
consideration, Mr. Culver opined that proposer 1 and 3 put the city in a much
better position to absorb the risk with lower processing costs proposed.
Mr. Johnson explained that the
2015 year was used to base revenue share numbers on given their fluctuations
and market impacts since 2010, anticipating a hopefully slow, steady growth
as a starting point for this contract term.
Mr. Johnson continued the
presentation comparing costs for three year and five year terms from each
proposer and their options for various components, with or without park
service and including ownership of carts, contract terms, pick-up frequency,
with and without park pick-up and options for logistics of park service and
corresponding schedules.
Regarding next steps, Mr. Johnson
advised that after tonight’s meeting and PWETC feedback, staff would then
move forward to the City Council seeking their authorization to start
negotiations with the identified selected contractor.
Discussion ensued regarding
container types and sizes for park service; consideration of the challenges
for park service; and areas yet to be determined based on the negotiation
process once a contractor is chosen.
Member Seigler suggested park
service costs could be reduced by programs such as the “Adopt-A-Highway”
program or Scout Troops or churches volunteering by park and participating by
receiving money for aluminum cans while they brought bottles to a central
location in the various parks. Member Seigler opined this could provide
those groups with a revenue source and save the city a significant amount of
money based on the time as represented in the average annual base pick-up
costs versus the annual cost for park recycling.
Member Lenz expressed concerns
with contamination of recyclables beyond what is now even found.
Mr. Culver noted the feedback
received from the recent community survey and citizen desire to expand
recycling in parks, in addition to the mandates from Ramsey County
encouraging municipalities to increase those recycling efforts. Mr. Culver
admitted that staff found a considerable amount of recycling in garbage from
city parks, and noted it was an ongoing challenge to address and balance
those efforts, anticipating that contamination would continue to be a risk.
However, Mr. Culver noted that to-date, Roseville has a good reputation for
low residuals in the waste stream, and advised a goal would be that park
recycling not hinder that high rate. Mr. Culver suggested it may require
experimentation on where containers were located, differences in remote parks
versus the heavily-used Central Park, frequency of pick-up depending on the
use frequency at each park. Mr. Culver stated it would be a learning curve
based on those experiences moving forward, including how frequently for
pick-up at parks, the number and location of bins, and other considerations
to reduce the risks.
Member Lenz opined it would
require a massive public education process.
Member Seigler suggested signing
near trash containers explaining recycling options and locations of
containers (e.g. parking lots).
Continuing the contract terms for
five year consideration and various proposals and options, Mr. Johnson
reviewed the cost details for that longer term with or without the park
component, ultimately changing the ranking of proposers accordingly.
Discussion ensued regarding park
collection fees based on the vendor retrieving carts or city staff bringing
carts to a central location for vendor pick-up.
Mr. Johnson clarified that the
RFP designated the contractor retrieving materials and carts, opining that
provided valuable information for the vendor to perform versus park staff
doing so for central pick up at a parking lot. Mr. Johnson noted costs were
reflected accordingly for that service type and while noting recycling costs
at parks would be costly, he admitted he hadn’t expected such a big swing
between high and low vendors and the wide range of costs. Mr. Johnson noted
the biggest difference appeared in retrievals from parks and pathways.
At the request of Member Heimerl,
Mr. Johnson noted the additional slide showing values applied and cost
differences for proposers in using biodiesel fuel or CNG, as well as zero
waste events and revenue share; resulting in a shift from one apparent low
proposer to another. Mr. Johnson thanked Member Heimerl for suggesting that
additional detail.
Mr. Johnson noted actual cart
pick-up on trails proved the most expensive component versus parking lot
pick-up or building walk-up. However, Mr. Johnson noted if city staff
collected recyclables from trails or brought carts to a central location, it
now saved $80,000 to $90,000.
Discussion ensued staff costs to
provide that service versus contractual costs; need for clarification on
costs for carts located on paths and/or contractors picking them up.
Member Heimerl suggested the
potential for changes in pick-up based on seasonal collection.
Mr. Johnson clarified that the
proposals for park pick-up were based on a “per pull” basis and seasonal use
depending on the particular park, and reviewed current practice versus
potential future practice. Mr. Johnson advised that staff would work with
vendors to pull and set-out carts seasonally, and target those higher use
areas during winter months.
Mr. Johnson concluded by
reviewing proposal scoring and averaged scores for 3 and 5 year contracts,
averaging them within base collections. Using that as a base without
the park collection component, Mr. Johnson noted the ranking for proposers as
follows: Proposer 1, 3, 2 and 4 respectively. For the base collection with
the park collection component, Mr. Johnson ranked the proposals as follows:
Proposer 3, 2, 1 and 4.
Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the
best value scoring process and criteria used when using the highest rankings
based on average fees using the base collection. Using that method, Mr.
Culver noted Proposer 3 ranked as the highest scoring contractor by including
the park component to the base collection proposal; but without the parks
component, Mr. Culver noted Proposer 1 was the highest scoring contractor.
Mr. Culver noted using the best value criteria didn’t preclude picking
outside of the cost perspective, but using the best cost as well as knowing
Proposers 1 and 3 are both giving good value, as well as Proposer 2 if the
park component was deleted.
Chair Cihacek noted that, based
on the estimated 1,600 carts, rankings could change if not addressed prior to
making a recommendation.
Mr. Culver advised that
consideration would be wrapped into staff’s recommendation. When scoring
proposals form the best value perspective and prices were still sealed, Mr.
Culver noted some details came out when reviewing scoring sheets. However,
Mr. Culver spoke in support of the value perspective scoring before
considering the prices, with the result being that only a bi-weekly
multi-unit service impacted the costs, or bi-weekly park service. Mr. Culver
noted an argument could be made that such a proposal didn’t meet RFP
criteria.
Member Seigler opined it was
necessary to determine if it was better for the city to look into a three
year contract and negotiate or whether to consider the five year contract at
a higher score.
Mr. Johnson noted that additional
research needed; and advised specific to fees, he looked at that average of
collections and average net costs to the city for three or five years.
Member Seigler suggested locking
in a lower price for three years or a higher price for five years; but opined
the need to discuss and consider which was most beneficial to lock into given
the unknowns for year four.
Mr. Culver asked if Member
Seigler was looking at base fees or base plus parks; with Member Seigler
responding he was looking at either or. Mr. Culver noted there were more
than two choices; with Member Seigler responding the five year contract term
was higher due to the contractor risk (e.g. 1.d on matrix slide).
Mr. Johnson clarified that some
had annual averages with the five year contract term lower (Proposer 3) that
required additional thought, noting that just because the term was three
versus five years, didn’t necessarily mean it was more expensive.
To conclude, Mr. Johnson reviewed
proposal scenarios and pricing with and without the parks recycling
component.
Member Seigler asked staff if
they thought the city should own the carts or not.
Based on the proposals and
staff’s review, and taking into account the additional capital costs, Mr.
Culver advised he would recommend that the contractor own the carts. Mr.
Culver noted several individual Councilmembers had already expressed concerns
in the city taking on additional capital costs. Mr. Culver referenced the
scenario and prices. Mr. Culver advised that he would also recommend
including the parks recycling component at full service. Mr. Culver opined
that Proposer 3 offered a good proposal for that service for a five year
contract term as a whole and including those items, and overall providing a
significant value to the city.
Given the increased cost for
recycling inside parks, Chair Cihacek asked Mr. Culver if he had a sense of
the cost potential for regular trash pick-up that may offset it.
Mr. Culver advised that he did
not, and was not aware of the cost to parks at this time for their trash
service. Mr. Culver suggested there may be some potential savings if their
trash vendor didn’t have to service trash bins as frequently and if recycling
removed a majority of that waste. While it may be a possibility, Mr. Culver
advised he had no firm numbers to offer at this time.
Member Wozniak asked if staff had
a sense of the type of vendor service and outreach as per their proposals or
if one was more capable of doing specific outreach than another vendor that
would encourage more park recycling as opposed to littering recyclables
throughout the park and/or trail system.
Mr. Johnson noted that several of
the proposals focused on education, and suggested either of those two
proposers could help with park education, and working collaboratively with
city staff and its Communications Department (e.g. newsletters and social
media posts). If a solid program was put in place by the city for parks to
pursue that education, Mr. Johnson opined that if the contractor could and
would seek to do a good job posting parks and carts, in addition to an annual
mailing by contractors as the current educational component, he saw good
results from those efforts. Mr. Johnson suggested a spring focus on
recycling at city parks and pathways, which had not yet been done, and
focused on single-family homes and multi-family units as a part of that
educational outreach.
Member Thurnau stated he
preferred the contractor versus city staff perform the educational component
at parks as they worked to change the behavior at the site.
Mr. Culver suggested
collaborating with Ramsey County as well as the contractor, given the number
of resources available from the county based on their significant recycling
goals. Mr. Culver noted recycling involved citizen behavior at home and
outside the home as well. Mr. Culver thanked the PWETC for their valid
points, and agreed the program could be improved, especially the outreach and
educational components and efforts.
As for next steps, Mr. Culver
advised the topic was currently scheduled for the July 11, 2016 City Council
agenda.
Member Heimerl noted the need to
review current successes and failures with current vendors and learn from
those to make sure as we go forward whatever is deemed not to be working is
not being pushed hard in a new proposal or gathering successes from the
current system to ensure carrying forward in new proposal. Member Heimerl
noted the need to learn from those lessons to build the program not just to
beat a dead horse.
Mr. Johnson responded that within
each proposal, there was not sufficient detail to see those opportunities.
However, from staff’s perspective, Mr. Johnson noted they saw the results and
complaints from partial dumps sporadically happening even though proposers
may say they’ll completely empty recycling containers. Mr. Johnson noted
there were not a lot of opportunities left for those considerations; but
noted the parks component provided a big opportunity to further improve the
program and seemed to be a natural progression and next step for the city to
take given the community’s strong interest and participation in recycling.
While there may be some ongoing things for further improvement internally,
Mr. Johnson noted the current contractor was well aware of the areas for
improvement and continued to watch out for them. Moving onto the next stage
and next contractor, Mr. Johnson advised a contractor would also be made
aware of those areas leaving room for improvement. Mr. Johnson opined the city
and its residents were not doing a lot wrong anymore based on their recycling
history and the success of the program, especially made possible by past
staff efforts.
To add to that, Mr. Culver noted
a number of lessons had been learned throughout the program’s tenure,
especially growing pains when moving to single sort. Mr. Culver noted the
current contractor was doing a much better job than what had initially been
experience; but advised each proposer was already performing the work for one
or more communities and brought that experience to the table and addressing
various issues and learning lessons. Mr. Culver noted improving technology
certainly was a part of that allowing more immediate communication between
residents and contractors to address problem areas or concerns. However, Mr.
Culver noted the need to continually push the customer interface, information
and customer service aspects.
Member Wozniak sought
clarification that staff’s recommendation would be for Proposer 3 with a
three year contract including park service.
Member Seigler suggested phasing
in the park program, using Central Park for a start; and if found to be
successful, then expanding recycling to other parks and trails by adding more
carts and sites. Member Seigler spoke in support of phasing in the park
program versus a full blown start, especially considering the significant
cost over five years for carts located on all trails.
Member Wozniak opined there were
already some carts located on trails and some parks.
Mr. Johnson concurred, noting the
goal was to expand, depending on particular parks and paths; but offered to
consider staging the park recycling component based on input from park staff
on ideal placement based on their experience and usage at each park.
Member Lenz noted that Central
Park also had a higher level of shelters; and agreed with blitzing Central
Park and its shelters and then phasing in at other parks.
Discussion ensued regarding the
number of trash bins at various parks compared to the number of recycling
containers; with consensus of the need to work with the Parks &
Recreation Department on the phase in.
Member Wozniak noted the need to
keep in mind that the contract proposals are based on a per pull versus
estimated number of pulls; and if the park component was phased in, costs
would also be less than those currently shown on the matrix.
Member Seigler noted the need to
realize a return and opined it didn’t make sense if there was no return, especially
with the other concerns with additional manpower required, refuse trucks
idling; and reiterated his interest in phasing in the park component to
achieve the highest cost versus benefit by phasing in the program if and when
it grows.
Chair Cihacek noted the PWETC’s
interest in further discussion of implementing the park program by phasing it
in based on the highest density parks (e.g. Central Park) and phasing other
parks later in the year, with staff negotiating that phasing with the chosen
proposer.
Mr. Culver cautioned that a
reduced scope for park recycling could change the proposal numbers and
contractor ranking.
Specific to the city versus
contractor ownership of carts, Mr. Culver sought specific feedback on that
element alone, noting there could be significant annual savings but adding in
capital expense and removing some risk. Mr. Culver asked if the PWETC felt
it was worth it for the contractor to retain ownership.
Member Lenz asked if all vendor
equipment was the same when picking up the carts; and if that would impact
the life of or type of cart used from one contract to the next, and impacting
ownership risks and costs. Member Lenz cautioned that technology continued
to change in that respect as well.
Mr. Culver admitted that was a valid
point, but expressed his understanding that the equipment was compatible and
bins were shaped accordingly. Mr. Culver noted if the five year contract was
decided upon, future RFP’s could take that into consideration.
Chair Cihacek stated his interest
in phasing in cart ownership by the city over five years to allow available
funding for cart replacement, since cash out on the front end may not end up
making sense. Chair Cihacek also noted revenue sharing wasn’t a given and
may also impact accruing recycling funds for the future, and uncertainties
with Ramsey County grant funds available for cart purchase.
Since the grant funds covered
only half the price of cart purchase now, Chair Cihacek confirmed that Member
Seigler supported city-owned carts contingent upon receiving grant funds.
Mr. Johnson opined, while not
100% sure of the grant, he was fairly certain of its receipt, since Ramsey
County had just purchased a considerable number of carts for the City of St.
Paul’s recycling program.
Member Lenz sought clarification
on the timeframe for grant application and contractor negotiations, with a
January 2017 new contract start date; and asked whether six months allowed
sufficient time for both of those components.
Mr. Culver reviewed the proposed timeframe
for action and negotiations, anticipating having a contract available for the
City Council in August of 2016 at which time cart purchase, grant
applications and other components could be brought into the process.
At the request of Member Lenz, Mr.
Johnson clarified there was no grant application deadline for Ramsey County
for carts once the city’s direction was confirmed.
Discussion ensued regarding cart
ownership and pricing.
Mr. Culver clarified that if
parks recycling was included, the cheapest option was Proposer 3 with a three
year, city-owned cart; with the five year contractor owned the least
expensive five year cost; and a difference of $8,000 between the three year
city-owned and five-year contractor owned proposal; but affecting two
different Proposers.
Noting 30% of the entire
recycling contract cost was parks specific, Mr. Seigler opined that was
crazy.
As with any other bid, Mr. Culver
advised that contractors load up the contract prices based on different
elements; and while the total prices may be close, different components of
each proposal created a significant difference.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Culver responded that the city’s Parks & Recreation staff currently
collected trash from parks.
Member Lenz opined it would be
helpful for this topic to have some discussion in the public forum, such as
at a meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Chair Cihacek asked staff to see
that the Parks & Recreation Commission provide their input before staff
took their recommendation to the City Council if at all possible unless they
had provided their input in the past. Chair Cihacek noted one question was
whether they had seen any significant growth in park recycling or not. Chair
Cihacek opined he anticipated Parks & Recreation Director Brokke’s
response would be to support park recycling other than for cost impacts; and
from his personal perspective, opined that city staff did not have sufficient
time to perform trash and/or recycling duties.
Member Lenz clarified that she
had no intent to suggest city staff do so, but suggested if a new recycling
contract include the parks component, a task force be assigned to assist in
the planning and steps for phasing in such a program. Member Lenz suggested
members of the PWETC and Parks & Recreation Commission could share in
discussing that implementation and roll-out.
Mr. Culver agreed that was a good
idea, and noted his only concern was one of timing for that input prior to
providing a recommendation to the City Council.
Member Lenz clarified the
implementation portion could be done after award and once the contractor was
known. Member Lenz noted the phase in might not be completed until the
summer of 2017 depending on usage; but noted the need was there to discuss
the frequency of pick-up and other components and logistics for phasing and
considering each park and pathway as well as the number of bins or pick-up
frequency.
Mr. Culver noted staff would only
make a recommendation to the City Council but it would be at their discretion
to make a final determination. At this point, Mr. Culver advised he would
recommend initiating negotiations with Proposers 1 and 3 including
multi-family homes and park pick-up with phased in implementation, but
reiterated that could affect costs for either proposal. Mr. Culver suggested
staff could return to the July PWETC after the chosen proposer addressed
specific issues and questions, and final consideration at the City Council
level in August. Mr. Culver reiterated the differences in Proposers 1 and 3
could change dramatically based on whether parks could be phased in over the
term of the contract or within a one year timeframe that could affect costs.
Mr. Culver noted that even changing a small percentage in one area could
change the best value review results. Under those circumstances, Mr. Culver
advised he would not propose going to the City Council with a final
recommendation on July 11th.
Without objection, and on
behalf of the PWETC, Chair Cihacek suggested staff proceed to the City
Council for authorization to initiate negotiations with the preferred best
value vendor. However, Chair Cihacek asked that no award decision was made
until the PWETC was able to obtain clarification from those identified
vendors to clarify the apparent gap in service for pick-up at multi-family
units, and park implementation by phasing, as per tonight’s discussion.
Mr. Culver clarified that at this
point in the process, vendors could not be asked to change their proposals
for pricing, noting with tonight’s presentation and discussion, the proposals
were now public information. Specific to the vendor question related to an
apparent gap in service, Mr. Culver noted staff could advise the vendor that
this was not explained well in the RFP narrative. Also, Mr. Culver noted
staff could seek better understanding from vendors as to impacts for phasing
of park pick-up programs and suggestions for how the city may wish that
phasing done (e.g. high density parks versus low density parks and what
timeframes would work best). Mr. Culver noted this clarification would also
allow time for staff to consult with the Parks & Recreation Department
and advisory commission for their feedback.
- City Council Joint Meeting Review
Motion
Member Lenz moved, Member Seigler
seconded, TABLING discussion of the recent joint meeting of the PWETC with
the City Council until the July 2016 meeting.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Possible Items for Next Meeting – July 26, 2018
As part of the Priority Project
Program (PPP) and goals of the City Council, Mr. Culver announced that the
July meeting would include the PWETC’s review of the City’s Asset Management
Program specific to the Public Works/Engineering Department, including
information on how operations and data are reviewed and tracked. Mr. Culver
noted staff was also planning to have significant information and updates
available on solar installation at the City Hall Campus.
As noted above, Mr. Culver noted
the joint meeting with the City Council and a revised work plan would also be
July PWETC agenda items.
Member Wozniak noted staff should
also have available an update on recycling contract award and negotiations.
- Adjourn
Member Wozniak moved, Member
Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately 8:41 p.m.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|