The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.d. 1990 Recycling Program i � • • 1'(� f3(.-?X tilti �� ) 287� 1�7' lli SI '�^v '� ROSEMOU?J1. h1INNE ,i.�iA '�5OGH ��au-�� r,i:-a2:3 aa�7 Agencla [tem scl. TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCiL, CITY ADMIN[STRATOR FRi)M: DEAN JUHNSON, DIRECfOR OF COMMUNITY DEYELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1989 SUBJ: OCTOBER 1�, 1989 A(�ENDA 1TEM 6D. 1990 RECYCLING PRUGGRAM The City �ouncil has approved the apptication for funding to bako�a County for the 1990 curbside recycling program. We are currently under contract with Knutson Rubbish Service, it�c. for recycling services through 12/31/89. With the end of that cantract approaching, it is impartant [o make some preliminary decisions regarding the approach to and type of contract for services in 1990. As the Council may recall, staff secured rough quotes for the costs af curbside recycling from ekperienced recycling vendors back in the sprin� of 1g$E3, At [hat time, the "experienced" vendors were limited to BFI, WasCe Management, Super Cycle and Knutson. Based upon the quotes we had received and the type of program we had designed, we simply negotiated a contract with Knutson. The C�uncil will also recall that a nuraber of "tocal" hauters appeared at the Council meeting when the cantract was approved. They complained about not being offered a chance to bid on Che contract. They also suggested that giving the contract to a waste hauler would creafe an unfair marketing advantage to Ehe hauler and result in considerable loss of patronage. Staff defended ics recammendation, on the basis of the timing of our curbside reeycling pragram aad the fact that the oiher haulers had no reasanable experience or track record in recycling. We did suggest, however, that in 1990, we may �urn the entire program over to individual haulers similar Eo what many other cities in the caunty have done. At this time, I wouid like same direction from the Council as to the methnd of securin$ a contract for recycling services in 19�. I would offer two alternativesc renegotiate a contract solely with Knutson or prepare a "Request for QuaCiGcations(R�Q)"and negotiate a contract with one ar mare parties, depending on the responses received. Both a(ternatives have advantages and disadvantages. The aclvantage of the RFQ route is that it allows anyone to participate in the process. It removes any criticisrn of mcrely renegotiating a canlract with Knutsc�n. The disadvantages are that it's a lengthy and rather time consuming process and may not result in any reatistic proposals to negotiate. The advantage of negotiating with Knutson, who is the at�vious leading cantender, is time and labor saved in avoiding the RFC� option. The ciisac�vantage is that the other haulers are likely to be critical once again. There are a nurnber of reasons why 1 think we shouId continue the "single vendor contract" into the 1990 season. The adrninistrative requiretnents we experience are dramaticalty tower than those in ci[ies with the individual hauler approach. The hauters in those cities have complained about inadequate reirnbursement and confusion over reporting requirements. The individual hauler concept has led tc► more vehicles on city streets in most cities. With a single vendnr, we negotiate once regarding changes in tbe program, such as adding household batteries and tin cans. Handiing complaints (we have experienced literally none} is easier to respond to with a single vendor. Finatly, praviding uniform performance throughout the City is extremely simptiGed with a single vendor. a i . . 1�)0 �tecyclir�g Program October 17, 19$9 A:geada ltem 6d. Page 'Irvo Rasemaunt's program has been exemplary in many re�ards. We were the first to o�rate . a curbside program. We were the vnly city to start out with c�llection ac rnultiple dwellings in addition Eo single family dwellings. W'e were the firs[ to implement a commerciallindustrial recycling eiement. We were the first to ban yard waste from landfills. We had the most cornprehen�ive curbside prcygram -- inclucling waste oils and auto batieries. We were the t"irst to add hausehc�ld ba[teries and tin cans Eo the cnrbside program. We atsa offered a conveniently lacated attended dre�p-off center, where residenis cc�u.d also recycle cardho:�rd, certain �Slastics, white goods (appliances) and ferrous metals. Attached is an anaudited 6-month summary of recycling, submitced to the Metropolitan Council by Dakota County. It identifies the curbside, dr�p-off and yard waste tonnages by each city. I have br�ken down the figures far the curbside recycling portion to illustrate the pounds per person of recyclables collected in lhe first six months af the program. As you can see, tbe numbers for Rosemount are double the county average and w�ell in excess of other cities. At the present time, it would seem difficult to suggest any change in the way we operate � our recycling program. I believe the successes are due in part to the simplicity of the single vendor approach. I also beGeve crediE should be given to our existing vendor. Knutson has agreed to every rnodification/addition to vur program, such as batteries and tin cans. Knutson has garticipatcd in school programs and civic events, such as Leprechaun Days. Knutson has responded in the mann�r that a vendor with an interest in the comrinunity should. Tnis brings us back to the issue at hand. We have a comprehensive aad very successful recycling program. We don't want to compromise any part of the program in place. We will have approximately $35,000 in 19� to accamplish what we did in 1�8$ for nearly $57,0� (ail cities will receive less in 199(1). I questiou wheth�r the RFQ process wi}I provide us with any realistic resulls. I woald like to discuss the optians more futly with Cauncil. As im�arEial as I may try t+o be, I'rn certain my own bias is evident. 1 would prefer that the Council review the matter ar.d find its own comf�rt Ievel. . RECYLLSNG COLLECTION TONNAGE JANUARY - JUNE 1g8g "�u.�-iv s iLC,2 �;�,05. , ;,��,�,._�, CURB DROP OFF TOTAL YD WSTE YD WSTE TOTAL 1/1-6/30 ANNL?�yL CITY POPULATION RECYC RECYC RECYC CURB DROPOFF 1D WSTE T4TAL GOAL Apple Valley 33622 z', 394.00 157.00 551.00 374.63 327.13 702.76 1252.76 2436 Burnsville 50,225 �,� 523.00 562.00 1085.OQ 309.98 456.61 766.59 1851.59 2145 Eagan 44, Q58 ;Z, 708.Qd 430.Q0 1138.00 321.96 244.83 566.79 1704.79 1882 Farmington 5, 682 � 79.00 7.50 86.50 39.98 226.89 266.87 353.37 243 Hastings 14.881 23 169.00 45.00 214.00 44.25 15.20 59.45 273.45 6 � Inv. Grv Hgh 22,$50 !O 208.00 94.00 202.00 167.ti9 28.0'� 195.16 39?.26 933 Lakeville 22,707 �z 364.00 172.00 536.00 3Q5.43 330.93 636.36 1172.36 970 Lilydale 643 11.70 Q.UO 11.7Q 0.00 0.Q0; �.QO 11.?0 27 i Mendota 19? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A � N1'A N/A g Mendata Hght 8,982 ig 87.00 29.00 116,00 131.83 10.45 142.28 258.28 384 Rosemour�t 8�OI4 45 180.G0 22.00 202.A0 434.46 134.72 569. �$ 7?2.28 342 S. St. Faul 2d, 083 }�, 125.d0 55.75 180.75 Z1.50 232.40 243.90 424.65 858 Sunfish Lake 393 7.50 0.04 7.50 0.00 0.�0 Q.00 7.50 1 W. St. Paul 18,381 r3 74.OQ 365.QO 439.t?0 6.IQ 133.68 I.39.78 5?8.78 78 Rural Recye 14, 1Q0 ;a- 1t3Q.00 0,Q0 20Q.OQ �.00 O.Qt} 0.00 1Q0.0� 417 Dak. Co Gen1 263,818 0.00 132.10 132. 10 0.t30 25.00 25.d0 15?.10 N/A Dako�a Total 263,818 2Z� 2930.2Q 2071.35 5001. 55 214�.21 2265.91 4313.12 9314. 67 1.1(�82