Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> STAFF REPORT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />TO: Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council <br /> <br />FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator <br /> Jessica Jagoe, Associate Planner <br /> <br />DATE: February 17, 2017 <br /> <br />RE: Organized Collection Contract Renewal <br /> <br /> <br />Staff met with representatives of the haulers participating in our organized collection contract last <br />week. During this meeting, city staff was very concise about our expectations with the upcoming rates <br />given the haulers initial proposal. In addition, staff laid out the contract language changes and the <br />justification behind the liquidated damages revisions due to service issues we’ve experienced in the <br />past and again in just the last few weeks. From this meeting, staff is pleased to report that we have <br />come to an agreement on the terms for a five-year (2017 through 2021) renewal contract with the <br />haulers. With the need for contract extensions while we were still in negotiations, staff has previously <br />briefed the Council on some of the contract discussion points. However, I’m provided below a <br />comprehensive list of contract changes and highlights: <br /> <br /> In 2017, the residents will see a reduction in their rate (-1.05% on 30, -2.36% on 60, -3.82% on <br />90, and -4.07% on up to 360 gals) with an average overall increase of 2% per year for the <br />remaining four years. In the breakdown of the rate there is disposal, collection and recycling <br />costs. The disposal cost is intended to be a revenue neutral component for the hauler that <br />reflects the cost for disposal. Studies now show the average per household per year amount of <br />waste generated is 2,000 pounds per year. Staff examined our rate in comparison to the number <br />of accounts multiplied by the tipping fee charged to the haulers for disposal. This showed a <br />profit of roughly $15,000 in disposal costs. As a result, staff reapportioned that $15,000 to <br />other components of the rate which resulted in a decrease in our rates for the first year of the <br />contract. Staff should mention that consideration was given as to whether or not a weight study <br />should be conducted for Little Canada. By doing so it may be that the waste generated in Little <br />Canada is less than the average, but on the flip side there is risk that it is actually higher. In <br />addition, there are some challenges for the hauler in capturing a true picture of only our waste <br />because our routes have combined loads in the truck with other stops. We’d either have to have <br />the hauler perform a route that is Little Canada only (which possess an issue for them) or have <br />them base an average on the number of Little Canada stops and other stops that were collected <br />on that day for the truck (using this option, you are still concluding to an average assumption). <br /> There will be no changes to the types of services provided to our residents under the renewal <br />contract. One of the items of contention for the haulers was the bulky item pickup. During <br />negotiations consideration was given to removing this service from the contract and going to a <br />set fee schedule that would charge per item collected. However, staff through the years has <br />received very positive feedback from our residents that this is a worthwhile and valuable