Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />December 13, 1994 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />C.ouncil Business. continued <br /> <br />E-Z Recycling is requesting a two year extension of their City contract which ends <br />December 31, 1995. In doing so, the per household monthly rates would be $1.90 <br />for all three years. The change from the current $82 per ton charge provides the <br />City a savings of about $1,135 per month or $13,000 per year. Up to now, it has <br />been cheaper to contract at the per ton price due to the tonnage amount being much <br />lower than it is now. Because of increased tonnage, the City would benefit from a <br />per household cost. The monthly household cost will also provide a much easier <br />method for annual budgeting. <br /> <br />Regarding the Amended SCORE Funding Grant Application, there will be a <br />decrease in the City's pickup cost for next year as a result of switching to the per <br />household cost. The City's Recycling Service Charge should reflect that decrease. <br />With the approval of the 1995 SCORE Grant and 1995 Recycling Service Charge, <br />the new City Recycling charge will be $20 per household. <br /> <br />Samuelson asked if the $20 annual charge will continue for three years. Fridgen <br />confirmed that the annual charge for 1995 would be $20. He noted that the three <br />year contract relates to the $1.90 per month per household charge which remains in <br />effect for that period of time. However, the only change will reflect any increase in <br />the number of single family households participating in the program. Fridgen <br />confirmed that this is a very favorable contract for the City. <br /> <br />Benke asked if the contract was originally awarded through a competitive bidding <br />process. Fridgen said the City Attorney previously reviewed the process involved <br />during the original contract negotiation. Benke asked if the City is legally precluded <br />from extending the terms of the contract. Fridgen explained that according to the <br />contract, the City can extend the contract if both parties agree. Acting City <br />Attorney Jim Thomson explained that the service agreement is not obligated to the <br />low bidder scenario, and the contract can be extended if the parties choose to do so. <br /> <br />Fulton noted that the New Brighton rate is about $.20 lower per household than <br />neighboring cities. Fridgen said the Shoreview bidding process produced a $2.05 <br />per household bid. Benke feels the $20 per household rate is quite reasonable. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Larson, to APPROVE THE AMENDED <br />RECYCLING CONTRACT BETWEEN E-Z RECYCLING AND THE CITY <br />OF NEW BRIGHTON. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Larson, to APPROVE THE AMENDED 1995 <br />SCORE FUNDING GRANT APPLICATION FOR RAMSEY COUNTY AND <br />THE 1995 CITY RECYCLING SERVICE CHARGE. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />City Engineer Les Proper presented for consideration the bids for the Brighton <br />Green Townhomes Utilities Project 94-7. The project area is located on 5th Ave. <br />and 10th St. Twelve bids were received and the low bidder was Shield <br />Construction. Shield has not worked in New Brighton before, but received good <br />references from other cities. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Recycling Contract <br />SCORE Grant <br />Report 94-293A <br />Report 94-293B <br /> <br />Brighton Green <br />Townhomes Utilities <br />Report 94-294 <br />