CC PACKET 10251988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tJ -6- 1 meetings of the Recycling Task Force which had considered all the 2 proposals they had received from garbage haulers to do the recycling 3 and concluded Waste Management would probably do the best job for St. • 4 Anthony. 5 Councilmember Enrooth said that he perceived the Task Force had actually 6 received "specific bids" from these four vendors... He told the Mayor Pro 7 Tem that Waste Management had not only submitted "the cheapest bid" but 8 also had the most extensive services to provide; were the only bidder 9 who would return all recycling monies to the City; were the only 10 hauler who had a centralized depot available for weighing and 11 separating the materials, which is mandatory; and were the only ones who 12 would provide "free of charge" the necessary containers for both garbage 13 and recyclable materials. 14 He said "no one else met the Task Force criteria or even came close to 15 providing the service the Committee perceived was necessary to meet the 16 Metropolitan Council and County mandates. The Councilmember said the 17 fact that Waste Management already hauls between 60% and 70% of the 18 City's garbage now, was really a minor factor in the Task Force's 19 decision, which was primarily based on the type of service the hauler 20 could provide towards "total recycling with the least amount of trucks 21 on the City streets. " Councilmember Enrooth reported only two 22 companies, Waste Management and Knutson had been really serious 23 bidders. He explained that Super Cycle is strictly a recycler who can't 24 handle other types of waste. Reuters had submitted a "late bid" and 25 although their bid was competitive, it was not considered viable because 26 their capacity is limited to half of what they might handle by • 27 Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council. 28 Mayor Pro Tem Ranallo indicated residents who had called him. had raised 29 the question of whether Waste Management's bid had been the lowest 30 submitted, and wanted to know specifically what they would have to pay 31 for the service; how long those charges would remain unchanged; and 32 whether they would have to haul the containers down to the curb. 33 Councilmember Enrooth reminded him that all those issues would be 34 addressed at the end of the 90 day waiting period when a contract with 35 whichever hauler is finally selected is negotiated to be approved by the 36 Council. Mr. Childs indicated one of the points which would have to be 37 negotiated would be whether the billing would be handled by the waste 38 hauler or inhouse by City staff. He said he would also guess the 39 contract would contain specifics like the rates, dates of pickup, 40 duration of the contract, and the amount of the contract. Councilmember 41 Enrooth indicated he perceived that the service would be too expensive 42 if the residents mandated that the hauler had to haul the containers 43 down to the curb as some have said Woodlake now does. He also pointed 44 out that there would no longer be garbage cans involved but rather, each 45 residence would be provided with a container on wheels for waste which 46 cannot be recycled and a container for recyclables. He said the 47 alternate proposal open to the City, which would be much more costly, 48 would be to continue with garbage cans which would eliminate automated 49 pickup of garbage and involve more time and handling by the haulers and 50 higher tipping charges at the incinerator.