HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 07-22 City Council Workshop Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:00 P.M. Monday, July 22, 2013
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Maplewood Recycling Program – Update on Recycling Carts and Rates
2. Fish Creek Acquisition Project - Funding Plan Update
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion on Budget Overview and Goals
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item D.1.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chuck Ahl, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Maplewood Recycling Program – Update on Recycling Carts and
Rates
DATE: July 17, 2013 for the July 22 City Council Workshop
BACKGROUND
In May 2013 staff updated the City Council on contract negotiations with Tennis Sanitation, LLC,
for our City-wide residential recycling program. Tennis’ recycling contract ends December 31,
2013. Under the current contract, Tennis charges the City $1.75 per unit per month for
recycling collection. Staff negotiated three contract extension scenarios including the use of the
City’s existing recycling bins, contractor-supplied recycling carts, and City-supplied recycling
carts:
1. Use of Existing Recycling Bins - Tennis proposed no increase to recycling rates for two
years with the continued use of City-supplied recycling bins. The rate would remain at
$1.75 per unit per month for the first two years of a contract extension (2014 and 2015)
and $2.00 per unit per month for two additional extensions (2016 and 2017).
2. Contractor-Supplied Recycling Carts - Tennis proposed to supply recycling carts for
Maplewood residential properties with at least a four-year contract. Cost of the contract
would be $2.50 per unit per month for the first two years of the contract (2014 and 2015)
and $2.75 per unit per month for two additional years (2016 and 2017).
3. City-Supplied Recycling Carts - If the City purchases recycling carts, Tennis proposes no
increase to recycling rates, remaining at $1.75 per unit per month for a two-year
extension (2014 and 2015) with the possibility of two additional one-year extensions.
The City would need to charge an additional fee for carts as discussed in the attached
report (Attachment A). Additionally, the City will capture 70 percent of the revenue
earned for any increases in tonnage of materials collected with the use of recycling carts
over tonnage collected that month in 2012 with the use of recycling bins.
DISCUSSION
During the May City Council workshop the City Council directed staff to finalize negotiations with
Tennis for a two-year, City-wide residential recycling contract extension. However, there was
no consensus on which contract scenario staff should finalize - use of existing recycling bins,
use of contractor-supplied recycling carts, or use of City-supplied recycling carts. The City
Council did request that staff continue to review the City-supplied recycling cart option and bring
back additional information for review.
Staff has obtained technical assistance from Ramsey County’s Public Entities Technical
Assistance Program (TAP). The City and County have retained Foth Infrastructure and
Environment, LLC, to provide technical consultant services as a part of the County and City
Workshop Packet Page Number 1 of 21
recycling collection system planning and implementation. To research the City-supplied
recycling cart option further, staff requested Susan Young of Foth research the following
questions:
1. What will be the estimated additional revenue sharing that may be derived from the
single-stream carts as presented in the Tennis proposal?
2. Of the two recycling cart quotes received through the HGAC National Purchasing
Cooperative, which is in the City’s long term interests?
3. What number of carts should be purchased; what will the total purchase price be?
4. Should Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) tags be installed in recycling
carts? Evaluate the future costs/benefits to the City of RFID tags potentially used in the
recycling program. As appropriate, incorporate the RFID tag specifications into the cart
purchase specifications.
5. Should the City pre-install RFID tags in recycling carts purchased?
6. How will the estimated cart costs and proposed revenue share affect the price that
Maplewood charges for recycling services to its residential customers?
Susan Young researched the questions and submitted a response for the City Council’s review
(Attachment A).
RECOMMENDATION
Review the additional information on recycling carts and rates and offer comment and feedback.
In addition, staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to finalize the two-year
recycling contract extension with Tennis Sanitation, LLC, under scenario number 3 (city –
supplied recycling carts). Additional information on the process for the procurement of recycling
carts will follow.
Attachments:
A. Foth Infrastructure & Environment’s Maplewood Recycling Cart Issues Memorandum dated July 15, 2013
1. Excerpts from Tennis Recycling Contract - 2014 Beginning Date
2. Estimated Revenue Share in 2014 with Recycling Carts
3. Draft RFID Specifications for Recycling Carts
2
Workshop Packet Page Number 2 of 21
Memorandum
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
Eagle Point II 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
www.foth.com
July 1 5, 2013
TO: Shann Finwall, City of Maplewood
CC: Norm Schiferl, Ramsey County
FR: Susan Young, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
RE: Maplewood Recycling Cart Issues
Introduction
Ramsey County retained Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC (Foth) to provide recycling
and solid waste technical assistance to assigned public entities. The City of Maplewood
requested County technical assistance under the Ramsey County Public Entities Technical
Assistance Program (TAP). The City and County have retained Foth to provide technical
consultant services as a part of the recycling collection system planning and implementation.
The City of Maplewood has asked the following questions:
1) What will be the estimated additional revenue sharing that may be derived from the
single-stream carts as presented in the Tennis proposal?
2) Of the two recycling cart quotes received through the HGAC National Purchasing
Cooperative, which is in the City’s long term interests?
3) What number of carts should be purchased; what will the total purchase price be?
4) Should Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) tags be installed in recycling
carts? Evaluate the future costs/benefits to the City of RFID tags potentially used in the
recycling program. As appropriate, incorporate the RFID tag specifications into the cart
purchase specifications.
5) Should the City pre-install RFID tags in recycling carts purchased?
6) How will the estimated cart costs and proposed revenue share affect the price that
Maplewood charges for recycling services to its residential customers?
What Will Be The Estimated Additional Revenue Sharing That May Be
Derived From The Single-Stream Carts As Presented In The Tennis
Proposal?
In the renegotiated contract with Tennis, that begins January 1, 2014, there is a provision for the
City of Maplewood to participate in the increased recycling tonnage and revenue that is
anticipated with the implementation of the recycling cart program. The increase in tonnage is
based on the 2012 data. The revenue share is based on the percentage of each material that is
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Page 1
Attachment A
Workshop Packet Page Number 3 of 21
collected times the published commodity price, less a processing and marketing fee for Tennis,
with 70 percent of the resulting proceeds of tonnage over that currently collected with the
recycling bins returning to the City (Attachment 1).
Tennis performed a pilot cart recycling project in April 2012 through March 2013. Two hundred
and fourteen homes were included in the pilot. Baseline data was collected at these homes in
April through September, with the pilot program running October through March. Tennis
recorded the number of homes at which recycling containers were “not out” during the study to
gauge participation, and the number of tons of recyclables collected. During the baseline phase,
of 5,564 total opportunities to recycle, there were 1,952 “not outs.” During the six months of the
cart pilot, for 5,564 recycling opportunities, there were 1,467 “not outs,” a 25 percent
improvement in participation. Recyclables collected equaled 28.13 tons in the baseline period,
and 38.44 tons of recyclables were collected in the pilot period, a 37 percent increase in the
tonnage of recyclables collected. The tonnage increase, in particular, is the basis for a predicted
revenue share scenario for City-wide cart-based recycling beginning in 2014.
Attachment 2 shows the worksheet for a conservative estimate of revenue share to Maplewood if
the cart-based program is operated City-wide. Using the 37 percent increase in tonnage
demonstrated in the recycling pilot program, an estimated increase of 856 net tons is predicted.
An analysis of the per ton recycling revenue, based on a three-year market history, yields a
blended value, less the processing fee for the recyclables, of $52.36 per ton, of which $36.65 per
ton, or $31,372 in year 2014 would return to the City.
This is considered to be a conservative estimate for the following reasons:
♦ The average pounds per household recycled in Maplewood has been increasing from year
to year, and in 2012 from the first quarter of the year to the last quarter of the year 1.
Education programs by Tennis, Maplewood, and Ramsey County will continue to build
recycling awareness and promote recycling as a community norm. This should produce
recycling tonnage increases and increase revenue to the city.
♦ The convenience of a single stream recycling cart has, in other cities, provided incentive
to recycle more items per household. Education associated with the roll-out of the single
stream carts often teaches people that things they did not believe were recyclable, can be
recycled in their single stream carts. Education associated with the cart roll-out also
focuses household and community interest in the recycling program, increasing “buzz”
about recycling and recycling tonnages.
♦ Tennis continues to increase the types of recyclables that they collect as they find
markets, and find improving markets for existing recyclables. This will potentially
enhance the blended value of the recyclables in coming years, increasing the revenue to
the City.
♦ Maplewood, using the RFID-generated information, can provide targeted education and
encouragement to non-recyclers, leading to increased tonnage as they begin to recycle.
1 January, 2013, “Maplewood Recycling Report,” Tennis Sanitation
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Page 2
Workshop Packet Page Number 4 of 21
♦ National and regional increases in recycling participation and tonnages when a single
stream cart and RFID combination are implemented would predict a higher than 37
percent increase in Maplewood recycling tonnages.
♦ Maplewood will be upgrading recycling information and education to multifamily
properties when the new multifamily carts are delivered. The multiunit property per
household recycling tonnage dropped from 2011 to 2012; multiunit recycling is
challenging for most cities. Maplewood’s efforts, however, combined with efforts by
Tennis and Ramsey County to increase recycling participation should result in increased
tons from multiunit properties.
Of The Two Recycling Cart Quotes Received through the HGAC National
Purchasing Cooperative, Which is In the City’s Long Term Interests?
When the City organized garbage collection in 2012, it purchased carts for garbage collection.
This was a cost-effective decision by the City that will protect its interests in future garbage
collection bids and negotiations. Similarly, City purchase of recycling carts will protect the
City’s interests in future recycling contract actions. On February 13, 2012, the City Council
authorized the purchase of garbage carts through a cooperative purchasing company which meets
the requirements of State statute. The City purchased 20, 32, 65, and 95 gallon garbage carts
from Otto Environmental Systems.
The City has recently received two bids for recycling carts. The bids include the cost of 65 and
32 gallon recycling carts, installation of the RFID system, and freight. The initial Otto bid
through the cooperative purchasing company for 10,560 - 65 gallon and 1,990 - 32 gallon
recycling carts was $462,284. This is the same cart, at the same price, as the City purchased in
2012. The cart is highly rated by previous and existing municipal and private sector customers.
Parts for the Otto recycling cart are the same as parts for the Otto garbage cart, except that the
lids for the recycling cart will be a different color. Recycling lids and garbage lids would be
interchangeable on the various size carts and parts for recycling carts and garbage carts would be
interchangeable. Otto also submitted a bid for cart assembly, distribution, and the initial RFID
scanning at $4.75 per cart.
The Rehrig Pacific bid for the same number and size of carts was $517, 133. This is the same
cart manufacturer that Tennis Sanitation uses in their garbage and recycling operations in other
cities. The cart is highly rated by previous and existing municipal and private sector customers.
Parts for the Rehrig Pacific carts and the Otto carts are not interchangeable. Rehrig also
submitted a bid for cart assembly, distribution, and the initial RFID scanning at $4.35 per cart.
Tennis, the City’s recycling vendor, has indicated that they would take delivery of either Otto or
Rehrig carts purchased by the City as part of the renegotiated contract. Tennis has also
submitted a bid to assemble, distribute, and do the initial RFID scanning at $4.15 per cart. The
renegotiated recycling contract also requires that Tennis store and maintain the carts throughout
the term of the contract, but the carts would remain under City ownership.
It is recommended that Maplewood purchase the Otto carts. Price, parts compatibility, and
interchangeability of cart lids if needed are reasons for the recommendation. It is also
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Page 3
Workshop Packet Page Number 5 of 21
recommended that Tennis be contracted to assemble, distribute, and do the initial RFID scan at
the one-time price of $4.15 per cart.
What Number Of Carts Should Be Purchased; What Will The Total
Purchase Price Be?
For purposes of cart numbers calculation, it is assumed that:
♦ Each single family home will receive a 65 gallon cart for recycling (9,206 units).
♦ Customers with walk-up service or customers using a 20 or 32 gallon garbage cart will
receive a 32 gallon cart for recycling (1,412 units).
♦ Single family home customers with three or more 95 gallon garbage carts will receive
three, 65 gallon carts (20 accounts to date).
♦ Half of the customers that receive Every Other Week (EOW) garbage service will request
a 65 gallon cart and half will request a 32 gallon cart (138 units total).
♦ Due to the convenience of the single stream cart program, small businesses and
organizations such as churches will wish to opt into the Maplewood recycling program
(estimated at 100 units).
♦ There are 9,206 single family homes.
♦ There are 2,139 multi-family home that could opt into the Maplewood recycling program,
half of which would opt for a 65 gallon recycling cart and half for a 32 gallon recycling
cart.
♦ There are 4,170 multi-family homes that have 437 – 95 gallon Tennis-supplied single
stream recycling carts. The City should replace these carts with city-supplied carts.
♦ There should be a 7 percent “overage” in the initial order to provide for growth in the
program and in the homes served, to avoid a mid-year additional cart order.
The number of recycling carts to be purchased include 595 – 95 gallon carts; 9,452 – 65 gallon
carts; and 2,728 - 32 gallon carts. Estimated price for carts and RFID installation only is
$471,116.30 (no taxes or freight included in estimate). Using the Tennis proposal for
distribution and maintenance adds $53,016.25, for a total cart cost of $524,132.55 (not including
taxes).
Should RFID Tags be installed in Recycling Carts?
RFID tags or chips are installed in many applications to provide identifying information. RFID
tags are now commonly installed in cars, personal electronics, passports, and pets to identify the
owner, in shipping containers to improve routing and delivery efficiency, and in garbage and
recycling carts to provide for data collection and analysis as part of modern residential trash and
recyclables collection systems.
Data on the RFID tag usually include the cart service address, cart size, date of delivery, and
manufacturer. In practice, as the recycling vehicle tips the recycling cart, an RFID “reader” on
the truck electronically notes the cart information and the collection information, which can later
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Page 4
Workshop Packet Page Number 6 of 21
be downloaded to a city database. Information that can be recorded during cart collection
includes the service address, the time that the cart was serviced, whether repairs are needed to the
cart, and whether the cart is assigned for collection (to make sure that the residence is paying for
service). The RFID can also be used to determine which cart belongs to which residence to
return lost or stolen carts. In advanced systems containers that are not out or which have
contamination in the recycling containers can be recorded to improve customer education and
participation in the recycling program.
Ramsey County has indicated that it will be requiring all cities in the County to step up resident
recycling rates to comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for the County
and in accordance with the Ramsey County Solid Waste Master Plan. Maplewood, in particular,
has been identified by the County has having low residential recycling rates, ranking lowest in
the County for pounds of recycling per person, and pounds of recycling per household.
RFID technology has been used by many communities to significantly improve recycling
programs. For instance, a positive message could be sent in the form of coupons or “thank you”
letters to households that regularly recycle; increased education could alternatively be sent to
households that do not regularly recycle. The use of RFID technology to provide targeted
education has been highly effective, including a recycling increase of 117 percent in South
Carolina 2, 221 percent in Chesapeake, Virginia in association with new recycling carts 3, and a 40
percent increase in participation with a 267 percent increase in tonnage in Dayton, Ohio 4. The
use of RFID technology to target educational efforts is simple and cost effective, as compared to
sending an employee out in front of the recycling truck to write down participating and non-
participating addresses, returning to the office and hand-entering addresses to subsequently send
letters. The City of Grand Rapids, Michigan developed a three-phase plan that uses RFID to
reduce the amount of trash sent to the county incinerator and landfill, while lowering costs and
improving operations. The first phase, implemented in 2010, encouraged residents to recycle by
rewarding them with points redeemable for discounts and free merchandise at local businesses.
The second phase, deployed in 2012, manages garbage collection and charges households only
for what they throw out, decreasing the amount some residents pay. The final phase, currently in
development, will be a system to collect food scraps and yard waste for composting, further
allowing residents to reduce their garbage generation and costs.5
The garbage carts previously purchased by the City and in use have RFID chips installed.
Allied, the garbage collection contractor for the City, has been collecting data using the
technology on carts that are placed for service to verify customer service and billing. Allied
installed RFID readers on the two trucks that were purchased to serve the City’s contract, and on
a spare used in the City when one of those trucks is down.
The bids that the City has for purchase of recycling containers include the installation of the
RFID chips at no additional cost to the City. The price of ultra-high frequency (UHF) readers
2 www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9219364/RFID_boosts_residential_recyclinn... 3 http://waste360.com/print/radio-frequency-identification-cutting-back-keeping-track 4 http://www.alientechnology.com 5 https://www.rfidjournal.com/purchase-access?type=Article&id=10772&r=%2Farticles%2Fview%3F10772
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Page 5
Workshop Packet Page Number 7 of 21
has been falling as production ramps up with adoption. Most UHF readers cost $500 to $2,000,
depending on the features in the device. A stand alone reader can be about $500 6.
The City’s current recycling contractor, Tennis, does not presently use the RFID technology but
may use it in the future, and agreed to assist the City in rolling out RFID-tagged carts by renting
an RFID reader. The City could order carts without RFID tags. In the future, however, if the
City wishes to employ the technology the cost could exceed $5.00 per cart, which would include
the tags at approximately $1.00 each, the cost of installing the tags, setting up the data base, and
initializing the system. If the City anticipates the possible use of RFID technology during the
life of the carts (15 years) it is much more cost-effective to have the tags installed and the data
base initialized at the time of cart purchase and distribution. Suggested specifications for RFID
tags are contained in Attachment 3.
Should The City Pre-Install RFID Tags In Recycling Carts Purchased?
It is recommended that the City have the RFID tags installed in the Recycling carts at the time of
cart manufacture, and that the distribution of the carts include entry of the cart serial number, the
RFID identifier and the address of cart delivery into a Maplewood-approved data base.
How will the estimated cart costs and proposed revenue share affect the
price that Maplewood charges for recycling services to its residential
customers?
The total cart purchase of $524,132.55, if purchased through a seven-year equipment certificate
and solely paid for through increased recycling fees has been estimated by staff to require a
recycling rate increase of $0.75 per unit per month. A recycling revenue share of $31,372 could
reduce this by $0.20 per unit per month if the revenue share were applied to the cost of the
recycling carts, for a $0.55 recycling increase.
It should be noted that the Tennis recycling contract is not scheduled for rate increases in the
next two years, and the potential revenue share to the City should increase over the next two
years which will minimize the potential for additional rate increases.
Maplewood enjoys one of the lowest recycling fees in Ramsey County or the metropolitan area.
Ramsey County reported that in 2011 the range of recycling fees in the County was $24.00 to
$76.18 per unit per year. Maplewood’s recycling fee, by comparison, was $26.64.
Unfortunately, as Ramsey County also reported, this low recycling fee was accompanied by a
very low recycling participation and diversion rate. The single stream recycling cart program
should significantly address this shortcoming.
Attachments:
1. Excerpts from Tennis Recycling Contract - 2014 Beginning Date
2. Estimated Revenue Share in 2014 with Recycling Carts
3. Draft RFID Specifications for Recycling Carts
6 RFID Journal, June, 2013http://www.rfidjournal.com/faq/show?86
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Page 6
Workshop Packet Page Number 8 of 21
Attachment 1
Excerpts from Tennis Recycling Contract
2014 Beginning Date
Section 1: Definition
1.29 “Revenue share”
Any increases in tonnage of recyclables with the use of recycling carts over the tonnage of that
month in 2012 with the use of recycling bins will result in a seventy (70%) revenue share for the
blended value of all commodities collected using the following procedure: Total tonnage for the
month shall be apportioned to the individual commodities by use of the most recent composition
study conducted by the Contractor and monitored and approved by the City. The value of the
commodity for a particular month shall be determined by the price quoted in
Recyclingmarkets.net on the fifth business day of that month.
Section 6: Payment Terms
6.2 Households
Currently, the City has determined that there are eleven thousand three hundred forty-five six
hundred and eighty (11,345) single family units and four thousand one hundred seventy eighty
two (4,178) multiple family units in the City of Maplewood. The City will pay the Contractor for
all single family units in the City, but will only pay one dollar and seventy-five cents ($1.75) per
unit per month for those multiple family units that the Contractor actually services. …
6.3 “Revenue Share”
The City and the Contractor intend to implement more effective recycling education programs
and the use of carts for single stream recycling for Contract years 2014 and 2015. Any increases
in tonnage of all commodities collected with the use of carts over the tonnage of that month in
2012 with the use of bins shall result in a share of recycling revenue to be returned to the City as
follows:
♦ Each month seventy percent (70%) of the blended value of all commodities, net
processing, shall be returned to the City using the following procedure:
♦ The current year’s monthly tons minus the 2012 monthly tons for that same month will
be calculated. Any increase in tons based on this calculation will trigger the revenue
share procedure as follows:
Total tonnage for the month shall be apportioned to the individual commodities by
use of the most recent composition study conducted by the Contractor and
monitored and approved by the City.
The value of the commodity for a particular month shall be determined by the price
quoted in Recyclingmarkets.net on the fifth business day of that month.
Values for each commodity will be divided by the apportioned percent of each
commodity from the composition study.
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Attachment 2
Page 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 9 of 21
Addition of the apportioned commodity values will equal the blended value per ton
of all commodities minus the processing fee of eighty dollars ($80.00) per ton
equals the total revenue increase over 2012.
Seventy percent (70%) of the total revenue share goes to the City for its revenue
share.
Example:
January 2013 Recycling Tons = 4,000
January 2012 Recycling Tons = 3,920
Current Net Tons = 80
Blended Value per Ton $104.06
(Based on January “Recyclingmarkets.net”)
Minus Processing Fee - 80.00
Equals Increase in Revenue $24.06
Multiplied by 70% Equals City’s Share of Revenue Increase $16.84
Multiplied by Current Net Tons 80.00
Equals the City’s January Revenue Share $1,347.20
The City shall not be penalized for decreases in tonnage. If there is a decrease in tonnage, there is
no revenue share due to the City.
Section 23. Estimating Materials Composition as Collected
The Contractor shall conduct at least one materials composition analysis of the City’s recyclables
during October of each year to estimate the relative amount by weight of each recyclable
commodity by grade. The results of this analysis shall include:
♦ Percent by weight of each recyclable commodity by grade as collected from the City;
♦ Relative change compared to the previous year’s composition;
♦ Percent by weight of the Process Residuals collected from the City; and
♦ A description of the methodology used to calculate the composition, including number of
samples, dates weighed, and City route(s) used for sampling.
The City shall be notified of the composition analysis and be offered the opportunity to view the
sorting and weighing of materials. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of the
analysis for each year of the contract
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Attachment 2
Page 2
Workshop Packet Page Number 10 of 21
Attachment 2
Estimated Revenue Share in 2014 with Recycling Carts
Based on Maplewood Recycling Pilot Report
May, 2013
Tennis Sanitation
Assumptions:
2012 (base) tonnage 2,313.6 tons
2014 (cart program) tonnage (projected) 3,162.7 tons
NET TONS 856
Blended Value
Commodity 2012 % 3-Year Estimated
in stream Price Ave.1 Revenue per ton
Newspaper 54.9 $ 93.2/ton $ 51.17
Corrugated Cdbd 14.3 $ 114.9/ton $ 16.43
Milk Cartons 0.1 NA NA
Tin 2.3 $ 82.9/ton $ 1.90
Aluminum 1.22 $1,624.0/ton $ 19.48
Glass (mixed) 15.12 $ 0.70/ton $ 0.11
Linens 0.1 NA3 NA
Plastic Bags 0.1 NA3 NA
Plastics4 9.7 4 $ 43.27
Total Blended Value $132.36/ton
Blended Value – Processing fee ($80/ton) = $ 52.36/ton
70% of proceeds to City = $ 36.65/ton
Total estimated 2014 revenue share at 856 tons $ 31,372.40
1. 6/12/2013. Dan Krivit, “Market Data Trends” Prepared for Ramsey County Environmental
Services. March 2010 – March 2013.
2. Below regional average.
3. There are no historic markets for these commodities; revenue is negative or negligible.
4. Tennis reports all plastics as one category. For projection purposes, a regional average of the
types of plastics was broken out, with the estimated revenue calculated from the splits.
4.9% PET @ 24.2 cents/lb $ 23.72/ton
1.7% HDPE Natural @ 32.5 cents/lb $ 11.05/ton
1.7% HDPE Colored @ 25.0 cents/lb $ 8.50/ton
1.4% 3 -7 (others) @ NA NA
Estimated total $ 43.27/ton
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Attachment 3
Page 1
Workshop Packet Page Number 11 of 21
Attachment 3
Draft RFID Specifications for Recycling Carts
City of Maplewood, MN
The RFID tags shall be imbedded in the cart handles at the time of cart manufacture. The tags
shall not be visible or removable from the outside without damaging the cart handle.
The specifications for these RFID tags shall include:
1. Must be passive design (no battery required).
2. Must be “Read Only” with no programming required.
3. Must be 100% weatherproof.
4. Must permanently attach to the trash cart.
5. Must be compatible with standard Handheld and Truck Mounted RFID Scanners.
6. Must be uniquely coded at the factory.
7. Must have a service life of 15 to 20 years.
8. Must be impact resistant.
9. Must have a minimum factory warranty of 10 years.
10. Tag specifications:
a. 0.007” clear polyester face material, permanent acrylic adhesive
b. Inlay Specification: Raflatac Short Dipole Monza3 IC, 860 to 960 MHz, Class 1
Gen2, EPC compliant, 96 bit memory.
c. Tag Construction: Both sides of the inlay are laminated with the 0.007” clear
polyester, acrylic adhesive material.
d. Inlay Placement Specification: The inlay will be centered in the tag, +/- 1/16” in
web and cross web direction.
e. Tag Dimensions: 4.25” wide x 1” long, with a tear perforation between each tag
along the tag’s 4.25” side. There is no spacing between the tags.
f. Tag Encoding: 10 digit, non-repeating, sequential, decimal number starting at
40000000271 and incrementing by 1 for each tag, data is locked, no password,
missing numbers are allowed, all 24 characters can be filled with the 14 digits on
the left side of the number set at 0 (zero)
g. Finished Rolls: 6” core, maximum 2,500 tags per roll, placed in ESD protective
bags.
h. Defective Inlays: Marked and left in the rolls
1. Recycling RFID numbers to begin at 40XXXXXXXX; Garbage cart RFID numbers began at 10XXXXXXXX
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Attachment 3
Page 2
Workshop Packet Page Number 12 of 21
WARRANTY
The Manufacturer shall warrant that the goods sold hereunder will be of merchantable quality,
will conform to applicable specifications, drawings, designs, samples and descriptions, will be
free from defects in material and workmanship and will be fit for the particular purpose intended
by the buyer.
A) The cart base, lid including latch, handle(s), wheels, axle, RFID tags and all other
hardware shall be warranted for a period of ten (10) years against premature failure/wear
during normal use. Under this provision, the successful Manufacturer shall assume all
costs related to part replacement/repair including applicable freight, labor, and
equipment.
B) The only exception to the above warranty shall be component part failure resulting from
City Contractor or owner abuse and vandalism which determination shall be made solely
in the judgment of the City. Under this provision the City shall be responsible for all
repair costs including freight, labor, and equipment. Snow-related failures shall not
constitute owner abuse or vandalism.
C) Warranty disagreements, if any, will be settled by a third party, mutually chosen by the
successful Manufacturer and the City. The Manufacturer and the City shall share all third
party expenses equally.
Warranty Statement: All Manufacturers must attach to their proposal a copy of their complete
warranty statement, which will not only confirm the requirements stated above but also any other
information applicable to their warranty.
\\ci.maplewood.mn.us\mwdfsys \Private\PW\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Recycling\Carts\Maplewood Recycling Cart Memorandum
7_2013.docx Attachment 3
Page 3
Workshop Packet Page Number 13 of 21
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chuck Ahl, City Manager
FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Parks and Recreation Director
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
SUBJECT: Fish Creek Acquisition Project - Funding Plan Update
DATE: July 8, 2013 for Council Workshop Discussion on July 22, 2013
INTRODUCTION
At the August 8, 2011 City Council meeting, Council approved entering into a contract with The
Conservation Fund to acquire approximately 70 acres of land (Fish Creek property) in south
Maplewood. The Conservation Fund closed on the property in October of 2011. Pursuant to the
contract, the City has 24 months from the closing date of October 2011 to purchase the property from
The Conservation Fund. The total project cost is estimated to be in the range of $2,225,000 -
$2,250,000. To date, the City has secured funding totaling $1,907,000 for this project which results in
an unmet need of approximately $315,000 – $325,000. At the July 22 Council Workshop Council will
discuss acquisition funding.
BACKGROUND
The Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway stretches from the Mississippi River in St. Paul, through
Maplewood, to Carver Park in Woodbury. The heart of the greenway is Fish Creek and the adjoining
142-acre Ramsey County Open Space. The Fish Creek property consists of six contiguous parcels,
totaling approximately seventy acres. The site is surrounded on three sides by the county open space
and is punctuated by rolling hills, Mississippi River bluff top, a prairie remnant, and oak and aspen
woodlands. Acquisition of the site will: 1) increase the buffer along Fish Creek; 2) Preserve woodlands
and open rolling grassland in a natural state; 3) Protect Mississippi River bluff lands; 4) Improve access
to the creek and county lands; and 5) Provide an access point needed to create the Fish Creek Hiking
Trail, a 1-1/2 mile trail from Point Douglas Road to Carver Lake Park.
In February 2011, Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement between the City, Ramsey County, and
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Through this agreement, once the site is acquired 50
acres will be owned by the city and 20 acres will be owned by the county. Due to requirements of
grants received for acquisition, sixty-two acres of the site will have deed restrictions to ensure that
these acres remain in conservation use in perpetuity. The remaining eight acres do not have deed
restrictions associated with them (see Attachment 1).
The City Council approved the Fish Creek Master Plan in October 2012. Development of the Master
Plan was a joint effort between the City of Maplewood and Ramsey County. The plan lays out a vision
for restoration and reforestation work on the site. Staff is currently working directly with Ramsey County
and representatives from Great River Greening in implementing outcomes of this plan. In addition to
the funding received for acquisition, Great River Greening has brought grant monies totaling $241,500
thus far for restoration/reforestation work on the site. The grants are from the Lessard-Sams Outdoor
Heritage Fund. The city’s contribution is $15,000.
Agenda Item D2
Workshop Packet Page Number 14 of 21
The Fish Creek acquisition project cash flow estimates are summarized below.
FISH CREEK ACQUISITION PROJECT CASH FLOW ESTIMATES
July 2013
EXPENSES
LAND ACQUISITION $1,900,000
MISCELLANEOUS – TAXES – FEES – APPRAISAL – PHASE I $ 325,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $2,225,000
FUNDING
RAMSEY COUNTY JPA $425,000
RWMWD JPA $175,000
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD JPA $425,000
3M FOUNDATION $200,000
DNR NATURAL AND SCENIC AREA GRANTS $500,000
LCCMR GRANT $162,000
ADDITIONAL FUNDRAISING $20,000
SUMMARY
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $2,225,000
TOTAL COMMITTED INCOME TO DATE $1,907,000
UNMET NEEDS $318,000
Of the $1,907,000 raised thus far, $1,025,000 was the result of a Joint Powers Agreement between the
City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, and the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
(RWMWD). Staff was successful in applying for and receiving the following grants: DNR Natural and
Scenic Area Grant Program ($500k), the 3M Foundation ($200k), and the Legislative-Citizen
Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR - $162k). An additional $20k was raised with the
assistance of the Friends of the Mississippi River, Friends of Maplewood Nature, and thru private
donations.
DISCUSSION
Staff is currently working on acquiring the property from The Conservation Fund and we are anticipating
closing on the property sometime this September, although a final closing date has not been
established. As previously mentioned, the project has a remaining balance of approximately $318,000.
Staff continues to work on bridging this funding gap. To this end, staff has submitted a bonding request
to the Minnesota Management and Budget Office for consideration in the 2014 legislative session. The
City will not have a definitive answer on the bonding request until May of 2014. If the bonding request is
unsuccessful, staff would then reach out to our partners in an attempt to raise additional funding for the
project. Our partners have indicated that they would like to see the City continue to work with the
legislature on the bonding request.
Agenda Item D2
Workshop Packet Page Number 15 of 21
If we are unsuccessful in raising any additional capital, the City is responsible for the outstanding
balance of approximately $318,000. Monies from the Park Acquisition Fund (PAC) would be used to
offset this balance. The Park Acquisition Fund does have monies in the account to pay for the
acquisition though this would likely cause other projects to be amended, delayed or eliminated.
Another option on the table is to collaborate with a developer who may have an interest in marketing
the remaining eight acres on the site. As previously noted, these eight acres are currently
unencumbered with deed restrictions. The City Council could also choose to sell the property outright.
The proceeds, if and when this parcel develops or sells, would be applied directly to the outstanding
balance. Staff is not supportive of this option. However, it was included as part of a funding plan that
was presented to the City Council in August of 2011 when Council authorized the contract with The
Conservation Fund to proceed with the purchase of the Fish Creek Property. If council were to direct
staff to further explore this option, staff would request an additional twelve months or so from the date
the property is acquired from the Conversation Fund to pursue other funding opportunities including the
state bonding request so sale and development of land would be unnecessary. Staff would continue to
update Council on the progress of these efforts during this period.
Staff would like direction from council on the following:
1. Does council want to preserve all 70 acres at this site?
2. If yes, does council support using Park Acquisition Fund (PAC) to cover unmet funding needs, if
Bonding and other fundraising is not successful?
3. Or, does council want staff to explore sale or development of these eight acres?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting direction from Council regarding the funding approach for Fish Creek. Ultimately, the
City is responsible for any remaining funds due on the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Fish Creek Parcels – Illustrating Parcels with and without deed restrictions.
Agenda Item D2
Workshop Packet Page Number 16 of 21
Fish Creek Parcels
The Fish Creek property consists of six contiguous parcels, totalling approximately 70 acres. After the site is
acquired 20 acres will go to Ramsey County. The JPA indicates the county land will include land adjacent to
the creek buffer and land in the southwest portion of the site. 62 acres are being paid for in part by state
grants and will have deed restrictions to ensure they remain in conservation use. The 8‐acre parcel on the
north has no deed restrictions.
50 acres
20 acres to county (SW
portion, + creek buffer)
Part of DNR grant
Deed restriction on this
portion (conservation)
12 acres
Part of
LCCMR grant
Deed
restriction
8 acres
No deed
restriction
Agenda Item D2
Workshop Packet Page Number 17 of 21
Work Session Agenda Item E1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Charles Ahl, City Manager
Gayle Bauman, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Discussion of 2014 Budget Overview and Goals
DATE: July 16, 2013
INTRODUCTION
This agenda item is the start of the 2014 Budget process along with information for the City
Council. The staff intends to review the process that we propose for the Council to provide input
prior to considering settling the maximum levy for 2014 in September 2013, and adopting the
final budget in December 2013. Staff has begun the process of estimating the needs and
necessary budget reductions to meet the overall budget directions given by the Manager’s office.
The expectation is that the City Council will provide input into the process at this time, so that
August presentations provide the Council with their desired level of involvement into the budget
process prior to the necessary decision dates.
Background Information
During the past months, the City Manager’s budget team has established goals, including
through the Council – Staff Retreat process, and the Management Team has developed the
following assumptions to be shared with the City Council about the 2014 Budget:
1. A levy increase of 0% = $0.
2. New funding provided through the 2013 Legislature as follows:
a. Local Government Aid: $530,000
b. Sale Tax Exemption: $ 75,000 [estimated savings for General Fund]
3. A stabilization of funding for the MCC Fund. [from the Audit Report]
4. A stabilization of funding for the Ambulance Fund. [from the Audit Report]
5. A stabilization of funding for the Debt Service Fund. [from CIP Report]
6. Continued dedication of funding for Public Safety Facilities.
7. Attempt to increase funding for Park Development.
8. A continued reduction in the street renewal program.
9. Stabilized funding for Economic Development.
The levy for 2013 was distributed as follows:
General Fund $12,500,600
Redevelopment Fund $ 20,000
EDA Levy $ 89,270
Recreation Program Fund $ 175,000
Maplewood Community Center Fund $ 460,000
Debt Service Fund $ 4,313,530
Capital Improvement Projects Fund $ 180,000
Fire Truck Replacement Fund $ 50,000
Public Safety Expansion Fund $ 260,000
Park Development Fund $ 30,000
Ambulance Fund $ 450,000
Total 2013 Levy $18,528,400
Workshop Packet Page Number 18 of 21
2014 BUDGET PROCESS
PAGE TWO
Each of the Department Heads has prepared budget requests based upon their needs for 2014.
In addition, the Capital Improvement Plan is proposed for adoption at tonight’s hearing on July
22, 2013, that includes financing assumptions for various projects and improvements.
Following is a summary of the requests and needs for 2014 based upon those requests and the
CIP:
Summary of Initial Budget Requests
General Fund Operating Expenses increase over 2013: $ 836,310
Proposed changes to 2014 levy per CIP:
Economic Development Authority Levy change: $ 0
New Funding for Maplewood Community Center Capital Projects: $ 65,000
Ambulance Fund Change: $ 0
Park Development Fund Change: $ 0
Decrease funding for Recreation Program Fund: $ 0
Increase funding for Debt Service for 2013 Bonding: $ 345,070
Decrease Public Safety Fund for Police Department Expansion ($ 260,000)
Increase Housing Redevelopment Fund $ 20,000
Total $ 170,070
In order to maintain a 0% levy increase for 2014, the General Fund levy would need to be
reduced by $170,070. With additional department requests of $836,310 and a levy reduction of
$170,070, staff must solve a $1,006,380 issue.
Discussion
In the report prepared by Finance Director Gayle Bauman, dated May 29, 2013 for the June 10,
2013 Work Session, that is included with the Capital Improvement Plan approval, the analysis of
the City debt indicated that a majority of the new revenue from Local Government Aid should be
used to hold down the levy increase for 2014 by applying the new LGA Funds to debt service for
the next 3-5 years. The City’s Budget has become a very complex balancing of revenues,
expenditures, dedicated funding of the previous year’s unused fund and fund balance. The
2014 Budget is probably going to be a focus on the new revenue provided by the state of
Minnesota. A summary of new tax revenue over the past couple of years shows the following:
A 2.0% approved Levy increase in 2012 provided: + $350,069
A 3.8% approved Levy increase in 2013 provided: + $674,877
In 2014, estimated new LGA provides: + $530,000
In 2014, estimated reduction due to sales tax exemption: + $ 75,000
New funding available in 2014: + $605,000
Workshop Packet Page Number 19 of 21
2014 BUDGET PROCESS
PAGE THREE
Budget Options
The Council should provide direction and establish goals as the staff prepares to present the
proposed budget and the maximum levy is set in September. The following options are open for
debate and discussion by the Council:
Option 1: [recommended by City Manager and Finance Director]
Set Maximum Levy at No increase +0.0%.
This approach proposes to cut the department expenditures to meet the levels of new
revenue and available funds from 2013. The LGA money would be used to offset
expenses incurred over the past 5-8 years for bonded debt and offset that planned levy
increase. We believe this was the intent of the legislature in providing levy relief. It also
requires the operation of the City to live within the means provided previously. Cuts on
needed programs will be required, but we do not anticipate staff reductions, and there will
be very limited ability to expand any capital programs beyond those programs [Police
Department Expansion and new Fire Station construction] that are already underway.
Option 2: reduce levy by a percentage of the LGA funds received
Levy to be reduced by approximately -2.86%
This approach would apply 100% of the LGA funds to reduce the 2014 levy and assume
no increase in operating expenses. This would require some reductions in operating
expenses, including consideration of leaving some positions, even within public safety,
vacant. It would also likely mean a reduction in the scope of improvements for the Police
Department Expansion and either limit or eliminate the Fire Department construction
plan. An extensive evaluation of this option has not been completed, but there have been
comments from residents about using the new state money for a full levy reduction.
Option 3: increase levy to meet the department needs
Levy to be increased by +3.0%
This approach would apply the LGA money to debt service but also expand programs, as
well as increase the levy for new initiatives. New programs for street expansion and park
replacement could be funded within this option. The levy would be increased for debt
service so that the LGA money could be applied to these programs. A levy limit exists for
operating costs of approximately 0.8%, but this does not apply to bonded debt, which has
been indicated could be increased over the next 3-5 years.
Option 4: a combination of Options 1,2,3
Levy increase would be less than +2.0%
This approach assumes that the Council wishes to explore a program without the
extensive program and departmental cuts, but also limits the levy increase issue.
Management originally explored a levy increase of 0.5% to 1.0% that would be dedicated
entirely to debt service, which would free up approximately $175,000 for new programs.
Workshop Packet Page Number 20 of 21
2014 BUDGET PROCESS
PAGE FOUR
Budget Review Process
The assumptions and information presented in this report will be reviewed in detail with the City
Council during Work Sessions over the next 6 weeks as follows:
1. August 5th Work Session
a. Police Department
b. Fire Department and Ambulance Fund
c. Public Works Department
d. Citizen Services Department
e. Executive and Legislative Departments
f. Finance Department
2. August 12th Work Session
a. Parks/Recreation/MCC Department and Funds
b. Community Development Department
c. IT/Building Operations Department
3. August 12th Work Session
a. Discussion / priority on Funding
4. August 26th
a. Budget in draft format available for public viewing
5. September 9th Regular Meeting
a. Council sets maximum levy and sets Public Hearing for December 2013
6. October 14/28:
a. Refinement of Departmental Budgets
b. Review of non-tax levy supported funds
c. Review of fees and utility rates
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council review the preliminary assumptions for the 2014 Budget
and provide input on the process for evaluation.
Workshop Packet Page Number 21 of 21