HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-12 PacketDRAFT MINUTES
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM
Thurs., June 14, 2012
7:03 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call was Members Gubrud, Heer, Jennings, Kostuch, Latham, Risser, Rudnicki, and
Chair Sierks
Absent: Gupta, Thompson, and Zarrin
Staff Present: Ross Bintner, Karen Kurt, and Rebecca Foster
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. Member Latham requested the Edina Go Green Letter and Chair and
Commission Member Comments Agenda Items to occur after the Recycling & Solid Waste WG Item due to her
leaving the meeting early.
Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Latham to approve the amended Agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes
Motion made by Member Kostuch and seconded by Member Rudnicki to approve the May Minutes per the
edits discussed. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Attendance report and revised roster. No Report.
C. Working Group membership roster. Remove David B VanDongen from the temporarily deactivated Air
Quality Working Group to the Water Quality Working Group. Laura Eaton resigned from the Education &
Outreach Working Group. Commissioners thanked her for her outstanding job and service.
D. EEC annual activity calendar. Member Latham will incorporate redline changes that were discussed.
E. Work group minutes tracking sheet. Members gave an update on the status of their minutes.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
Germana Paterlini has missed three consecutive meetings and has been deemed to have resigned from the
Commission per city code.
Ms Kurt introduced Ross Bintner as the new Environmental Engineer and EEC staff liaison.
VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Recycling & Solid Waste WG
1. Residential recycling RFP update. The City Council approved staff to enter into contract negotiations
with "best value" proposal for Residential Curbside Recycling. Member Latham would like to start
3
creating an environmental metric and work with Hennepin County and review what other City's have
done before the next bidding process begins.
B. Air and Water Quality WG. Member Risser gave an update on the revision of the Drive Through Ordinance.
The Working Group revised the decision to let PCD1 zoning district to have Drive Throughs. Member Risser
gave an update on the MS4 annual meeting.
1. Mayors' letter to support Clean Air Act legislation. The letter was sent.
C. Energy WG
1. Environmental Initiatives Awards winners. The City won awards for PACE and Green Step Cities.
Member Heer thanked Chair Sierks for his involvement with submitting the applications.
D. Education Outreach WG
1. May Term Intern projects. Member Jennings visited five elementary schools and taught them how to
turn off lights, recycle, compost, etc. She discovered she was reinforcing what the children already
knew.
2. 4th of July parade unit. Member Gubrud said the Home Energy Squad will be in the parade and Tolby
tattoos and switch plates will be handed out.
E. Green Step Cities Review. Chair Sierks reviewed the Green Step Cities the city has certified and discussed
what's completed and who will be maintaining the data if it's ongoing.
Step 1.1—The Property Manager will maintain the data entry.
Step 1.2 — McKinstry will report to city on energy savings and then have City staff create a RFP to have a
consultant do an investment grade audit.
Step 1.7 - Completed no follow up needed.
Step 2.1— Expand PACE to residential.
Step 2.5 — The watering ordinance needs to be monitored better. Possibly install "smart water meters" in
the future that knows the watering bans.
Step 6.1— Completed no follow up needed.
Step 6.2 — Need to edit city ordinances that conflict with Comp Plan.
Step 8.1— Completed no follow up needed.
Step 8.3 — Completed no follow up needed.
Member Gubrud would like to revisit the Mission and Charter of the EEC.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS
A. Request from Edina Go Green to address commercial recycling. Chair Sierks received a letter recommending
the EEC to implement mandatory commercial recycling. Member Latham said the RSW Working Group has
reviewed the request in the past and city staff gave an estimate of the number of hours it would be to
enforce the recycling requirement. Member Latham asked that the EEC to table this item until there is city
staff time available for enforcement and the city needs to create an inspection mechanism.
Motion made by Member Latham and seconded by Member Gubrud to table until discussion of 2013
objectives. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS. Member Latham informed the Commissioners that her
neighbors sealed their driveway with coal tar and made a formal complaint to the Edina Police Dept. Mr.
Bintner is researching a method for testing the sealant to see if coal tar exists within it. Member Latham gave an
update on Xcel Energy dropping Solar Incentives.
Commissioner Latham excused herself from the meeting at 8:06 p.m.
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Review Board and Commission Annual Work Plan Process. Ms Kurt said on September 19th the City Council
will have a Work Session with all of the Commission Chairs to review their 2013 work plans. The Council will
have its strategic retreat in October to plan for budget and staff. The City work plan will be released in
November. Ms Kurt asked for a volunteer for a Human Services committee.
Chair Sierks requested Commissioners to think about their top three priorities that they would like to complete in 2013
that would fit with the EEC Mission and Green Steps Cities.
There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Sierks declared the meeting adjourned at 9:14p.m.
Motion made by Member Risser and seconded by Member Rudnicki to adjourn meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Foster
GIS Administrator
5
-•
"'�
Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE)
Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE)
Regular Meeting w/Quorum
Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line.
Type "l under the month for each attending member.
Regular Meeting w/o Quorum
SENT Coumftm
Type " 1" under the month for each attending member.
Joint Work Session
NAME
TERM
J
F
M
A
M
J
J A S O N D Work Session Work Session 18
of Wip.1 AUenclance %
Meetings/Work Sessions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Gubrud, Bob
2/1/2013
1
1
1
1
1
1
2/21/2012 (enter date)
Gupta, Tara
student
1
1
14%
Heer, John
2/1/2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
100%
Jennings, Bevlin
student
1
1
1
1
1
S
71%
Kostuch, Keith
2/1/2013
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
100%
Latham, Dianne Plunkett
2/1/2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
100%
Paterlini, Germana
2/1/2013
1
1
1
8,
43%
Risser, Julie
2/1/2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
6-
05%
Rudnicki, Tim
2/1/2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1000A
Sierks, Bill
2/1/2013
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
100%
Thompson, Paul
2/1/2013
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
86%
Zarrin, Sarah
2/1/20151
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
6
86%
a)
Liaisons: Report attendance monthly and attach this report to the Commission minutes for the packet.
Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE)
Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE)
Regular Meeting w/Quorum
Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line.
Type "l under the month for each attending member.
Regular Meeting w/o Quorum
Type " 1" under the month on the meetings' line.
Type " 1" under the month for each attending member.
Joint Work Session
Type "1" under' Work Session" on the meetings' line.
Type "l under "Work Session" for each attending member.
Rescheduled Meeting*
Type "'I" under the month on the meetings' line.
Type " 1" under the month for each attending member.
Cancelled Meeting
Type " 1" under the month on the meetings' line.
Type "I" under the month for ALL members.
Special Meeting
There is no number typed on the meetings' line.
There is no number typed on the members' lines.
*A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is
given, the previously -scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting.
NOTES:
CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM
Thurs., July 12, 2012
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
11. ROLL CALL
111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes
B. Attendance report and roster
C. Workgroup minutes
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment," the Energy & Environment Commission will invite residents to share new issues
or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission, or which aren't slated for future
consideration. Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the some issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on
tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or
Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Commission might refer the matter to
staff or to an EEC Working Group for consideration at a future meeting.
VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Work Plan Development
1. Description of process
2. Members present top five priorities, policies, projects or green step practices.
3. Criteria for ranking
B. Recycling & Solid Waste WG
1. Chair update
C. Air and Water Quality WG
1. Chair update
D. Energy WG
1. Chair update
E. Education Outreach WG
1. Chair update
VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS
A. Green Step Cities — Level 3 Designation
0
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Wellhead Protection Plan
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS: httP://www.edinamn.gov/ <click calendar>
1/11/12 Name Your Neighborhood Meeting — Fdina Senior Center
7/16/12 Jazz on the Prairie — Centennial Lakes Park
7/17/12 City Council Meeting -- City Hall
8/9/12 EEC August Meeting — City Hall
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way
of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in
advance of the meeting.
Edina Energy & Environment Commission
Working Groups, Task Forces and Projects
Draft of 6-18-12
Air Quality Working Group (AQ WG) — Temporarily deactivated 9 Feb. 2012 — Chair Open - Members Julie Mellum,
Water Quali& Working Group (WQ WG) — 40' Thursday at 6:30pm - Chair Julie Risser — Members: Bill Johnson, Nina
Holiday -Lynch, Jon Moon, Robert Skrentner, David B. VanDongen
Prospective Members — George Hunter (10-4-11)
Eng r= Working Group (AE WG)— 3rd Tuesday at 7:00 pm — Chair Bill Sierks, Co -Chair John Heer - Commissioners Bob
Gubrud and Germana Paterlini - Members Richard Griffith, Richard Oriani, Greg Nelson, Gary Wahman, John Howard,
Bill Glahn, Brad Hanson
Prospective Members
John Dolphin - 5809 Eastview Dr
Peter Larson — (2-1-12) Employed at EnerChange, a nonprofit dedicating to working with nonprofits to reduce energy
consumption via a guaranteed energy savings program.
Education Outreach Working Group (EO WG) — 1" Tuesday at 7:00 pm - Co -Chairs Paul Thompson and Bob Gubrud —
Members: Sarah Zarrin (EEC), John Howard, Todd Willmert, Tara Gupta and Bevlin Jennings.
Home Enery Squad Task Force (HES) — Meets as needed - Chair Bill Sierks — Commissioners - Paul Thompson, Bob
Gubrud
Purchasing — Meets as needed — Co -Chairs Germana Paterlini, Keith Kostuch
Recycling & Solid Waste WorkingGroup (RSW WG) — ls` Thursday at 7:00 pm - Chair DP Latham, Commissioners Sara
Zarrin and Tim Rudnicki - Members Michelle Horan, Melissa Seeley — City Staff Solvei Wilmot
Turf Management Plan Task Force (TMP TF) — Meetings as needed over lunch hour - Chair Germana Paterlini (EEC) —
Commissioners - Ellen Jones (Pk Bd), Mary Jo Kingston (Community Health), Vince Cockriel (Staff); Ex Officio DP
Latham (EEC) and John Keprios (Dir. Pk & Rec. Dept)
Urban Forest Task Force (UF TF) — Meets as needed over lunch hour - Chair DP Latham — Commissioners - Joseph
Hulbert (Pk Bd), Michael Schroeder (Planning Commission) & City Forester Tom Horwath (Staff).
Solar & Wind Ordinance Task Force —Chair Open, Members — Bill Sierks (EEC) Michael Platteter (Planning), Ken Potts
(Planning) with support from the EEC Energy Working Group — City Planner Cary Teague (Staff)
Park Recycling Bin Task Force — Chair Dianne Plunkett Latham (EEC), Staff Vince Cockriel (Public Works), Tom
Swenson (Braemar) and Tom Shirley (Centennial Lakes), Members Melissa Seeley and Michelle Horan.
Bylaws Working Group —Chair Dianne Plunkett Latham (EEC),
Carbon Disclosure Project Committee — Commissioners Germana Paterlini and John Heer
E&OWG MEETING MINUTES
CITY HALL
July 3, 2012
Present: Bob Gubrud, John Howard, Paul Thompson,
Absent: Sarah Zarrin, Todd Willmert,
1. Minutes: June 5, 2012 minutes were approved.
2. Check in: Paul told us about his experience breaking a knee cap in the BWCA, air lift evacuation,
subsequent surgery, and the "being on the mend" process .
3. CERTS Solar Workshop: Dianna McKeown, Metro CERT (Clean Energy Resource Team) Director,
proposed scheduling a Solar Works Workshop and Resource Fair in Edina. Purpose is to provide Edina
residents and businesses with an opportunity to learn about solar energy, hear from people who have solar
installations, and find resources for a solar site assessment. Workshop would be from 6:30-8:00 pm including a
resource fair, a 30 min presentation on energy efficiency and solar applications, case histories of solar
installations by local residents and businesses ( Grandview Tire and Auto) , and Q&A. Possible fall dates are
Sept. 6, Oct. 4, and Nov. 1. Suggested venue is the EHS Community Room. Publicity would be the
responsibility of the E&OWG and the EEC; ie About Town Mag, Sun Current, Edina Website Facebook,
Communications Dept. flyers and posters, Chamber of Commerce. Next step is to place on the July 12 EEC
agenda.
3. July 4th Parade
* The Home Energy Squad Van will be available. Judy Thommes of CEE is also providing 300 @
TOLBY switch plate decals, tattoos, pencils, and Energy Challenge buttons to hand out
* All EEC and WG members have been invited to participate in the parade to carry the EEC banner and
distribute the handouts.
* Bob has arranged to drive an all electric Nissan Leaf in the parade, courtesy of Feldman Imports, so
we will have a vehicle to display the EEC identification signs.
4. Community Events
*John Howard suggested trying several times and venues: an afternoon time at the Edina Library and a
collaboration with Chuck Prentice at the Southdale Library. Action is to request permission to proceed from the
EEC.
5. Edina Churches
* Paul Thompson and Bob Gubrud are working on a process to engage Edina churches in becoming
proactive in environmental issues, especially climate change. Next meeting is July 31
6. Energy Education
* Status of Elementary Ed School projects for 2012-13 pending report by Sarah
Zarrin.
7. Project Earth
*Project Earth is in transition. Status is linked to interest expressed by students in Fall 2012
Environmental Studies class. Contact Eric Burfiend
8. New Member Recruiting
*Paul to review with Sarah Zarrin how to proceed on names collected at the April 19 Forum.
9. Nov. E&OWG meeting; Bob will check on room avails given conflict with Nov. 6 election day.
10. Next Meeting; Aug. 7
s
Energy Working Group Minutes
Meeting: July 20, 2012
Edina City Hall
Attendees: John Heer, Richard Griffith, Bill Glann, Ross mintner
Approved minutes from April meeting.
• Discussed option for working group focus to present to EEC
• Group had interest in looking at alternate fuel options for city fleet, for example CNG
street sweepers.
• Group review wind energy proposals made by member Griffith. The group thought there
would be interest in pursuing option for smaller wind turbines that could be placed at city
parks our facilities. Member Glann suggested installation similar to a small unit at
Macallester College in St Paul. These could serve as community education point and
may attract sponsorships to assist with installation costs
• Finally there continues to be interest in pursuing deeper energy efficiency option for city
facilities.
Working Groups
Air Quality
Open
Bylaws
Dianne Plunkett Latham
Education & Outreach
Paul Thompson & Bob Gubrud
Jan 3rd
Feb 8th
X
Mar 6th
X
Apr
3rd
X
May
2nd
X
Jun 5th
X
Jul 3rd
X
Aug7th
Se t 4th
Oct 2nd
INov6th
Dec 4th
Energy
Bill Sierks & John Heer
Jan 17th
X
Feb 21st
I X
Mar 20th
X
Apr
17th
X
May 15th
Canc.
Jun 19th
Jul 17th
Aug21st
Sept 18th
Oct 16th
Nov 20th
Dec 18th
Recycling & Solid Waste
Dianne Plunkett Latham
Jan 5th
X
Feb 2nd
X
Mar 1st
X
Apr
5th
Canc.
May
3rd
X
IJun 7th
Canc.
Jul 5th
Aug2nd
Sept 6th
Oct 4th
Nov 1st
Dec 6th
Water Quality
Julie Risser
Jan 23rd
X
Feb 23rd
Canc.
Mar 22nd
X
Apr
26th
May 24th
Canc.
Jun 28th
Jul 26th
Aug23rd
Sept 27th
Oct 25th
Nov 22nd
Dec 27th
Task Force
Carbon Disclosure Project
Jan
IFeb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
AugSet
Oct
Nov
Dec
Germana Paterlini & John Heer
Home Energy Squad
Bi Sierks
Park Rec clin Bin
Dianne Plunkett Latham
X
Purchasing
Keith Kostuch & Germana Patedini
Solar & Wind Ordinance
Open
Turf Management Plan
Germana Paterlini
Urban Forest
Dianne Plunkett Latham
Susan Howl
From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:15 PM
Cc: Susan Howl
Subject: FW: Edina, compete in the Earth Hour City Challenge
Lynette Biunno, Receptionist
952-927-88611 Fax 952-826-0389
Ibiunno@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.Rov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business -----Original Message -----
From: World Wildlife Fund f mailto:ecomments@wwfus.orRl On Behalf Of Michael Carlin
Sent: Thursday, lune 14, 2012 1:50 PM
To: Edina Mail
Subject: Edina, compete in the Earth Hour City Challenge
Jun 14, 2012
Mayor James Hovland
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424-1330
Dear Mayor Hovland,
As a Edina resident, I'm writing to urge you to help protect my family and our city from the harmful consequences of
increasingly extreme weather by participating in WWF's Earth Hour City Challenge, a competition among cities to
prepare for a changing climate.
More and more, communities in Minnesota are facing heavier precipitation and dangerous flooding. We aren't alone.
Cities throughout our country are on the front lines of increasingly extreme weather, from more intense heat waves and
wildfires to droughts, rainstorms, and floods. As climate change worsens, dangerous weather events are getting more
frequent or severe - or both.
But our city can take practical measures at the local level to prepare for these weather extremes, protecting us from
more costly and dangerous problems in the future. Infrastructure improvements and other proactive actions will save us
money and keep our families and communities safer and healthier.
How is our city preparing for these climatic changes? And are we doing enough?
With this letter I challenge our city to compete in WWF's Earth Hour City Challenge! I hope you will participate and
protect my family and fellow residents by preparing for the increasingly extreme weather our community is already
facing. Learn more at worldwildlife.org/citychallenge.
Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Carlin
6901 Hillcrest Ln
Edina, MN 55435-1605
Purpose
To facilitate development of a prioritized work plan for the Energy and Environment Commission before
September 7th. This work plan development process lays out a series of steps to bring good ideas
forward and develop a consensus opinion.
Timeline and Format
Over the course of the July and August meetings of the EEC, the commission must come to a consensus
on priorities for the commission chair to present to the City Council at its September 19th workshop.
The work plan development process has three phases, to be carried out over the July and August
meetings:
• July Homework: Each commission member writes up their ideas (a maximum of five) for the work
plan on the attached form prior to the meeting. An idea can be a potential project, priority, policy
review, or citizen engagement event. Please submit your ideas to Ross by Thursday July 12, at 5pm.
• July Meeting:
o Each member summarizes their ideas for the commission. Each commission member is
allowed to present up to 5 ideas in the course of 3 minutes.
o Members develop a list of 3-5 criteria for ranking the ideas. For example, ranking criteria
could include overall scale of impact to energy or environment, relevance to city operations,
breadth of community support, potential for cost savings, and ease of implementation.
o Staff consolidates the ideas and criteria for ranking and emails individual commission
members a ballot for ranking as well as the written idea summaries submitted by members.
0 August Homework: Members rate the ideas according to the ranking criteria selected by the group
and forward their ratings to Ross Bintner by August 15`.
D August Meeting:
o Results of ratings are presented and each of the remaining ideas is discussed and refined.
o Members develop prioritized work plan and discuss how the EEC should best implement the
plan.
o Members approve work plan for presentation at the Council work session.
Attachments:
Attachment 1— Format for ideas
Attachment 2 — Ballot for ranking
12
Commission Member:
Idea ID:
Y"', Od 1%11 , 11"! (Lp. R
Title:
czs rh- ton wort; th f
Type:
ors pe of this idea? (Poky P"--, t-h-,,ogy, nv,-me vpital p�j t, r, gi lat,n, at.
Environmental/Public Benefit:
'71 y t, pi, k the ot hie_. p"Llh, ,,,ter fl—, f,--, broader audit. nce,
risk --,r—nt, ety
Problem Addressed:
A 6r!2f Ic, se , i pti— ,f *he problem, gap, cx issue n k],—d.
Narrative:
,f descripfion of th, idea and t, -J., 'fl- 'en t" Indudi"E; to rated L)(A7et, par L,ir-t, t n -111le 6x!; - -t 1 A—t-
13
SAMPLE BALLOT AND CRITERIA FOR RANKING -Actual TBD
Criteria
A Has an immediate and profound benefit to natural resources or quality of life.
B Is directly related to city operations, infrastructure or city service.
C Is noncontroversial and has wide community support.
D Will provide significant short term or long term cost savings.
E Is risk free, easily implemented.
Score:
1 Idea epitomizes the ranking criteria.
2 Idea strongly adheres to the ranking criteria.
3 Idea partially matches the ranking criteria.
4 Idea does not match the ranking criteria well.
5 Idea is slightly or moderately opposed the ranking criteria.
6 Idea is the antithesis of the ranking criteria.
14
¢
m
v
o
—
u u
—
u
—
u
—
u
—
i
¢
Idea number:
JHl4
1
1
1
2
1.80
RB2
3
2
2
1
2
2.00
851
5
4
1
1
1
2.40
RB1
1
21
21
5
3
2.60
Average
3.25
2.25
1.50
2.00
2.00
SAMPLE BALLOT AND CRITERIA FOR RANKING -Actual TBD
Criteria
A Has an immediate and profound benefit to natural resources or quality of life.
B Is directly related to city operations, infrastructure or city service.
C Is noncontroversial and has wide community support.
D Will provide significant short term or long term cost savings.
E Is risk free, easily implemented.
Score:
1 Idea epitomizes the ranking criteria.
2 Idea strongly adheres to the ranking criteria.
3 Idea partially matches the ranking criteria.
4 Idea does not match the ranking criteria well.
5 Idea is slightly or moderately opposed the ranking criteria.
6 Idea is the antithesis of the ranking criteria.
14
Purpose
Annual work plans ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Board and Commissions are aligned
and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to support board and commission
work.
Timeline and Format
Board and commissions should focus on drafting their work plans during the summer months for the
following year. The Council meets with Board and Commission Chairs during the month of September to
review the proposed work plans. The Council gives final approval for the work plans in November, after
additional progress has been made with the City's overall work plan and budget. Work plans go into
effect January 1 for the remainder of the calendar year.
The work plan has three main sections (Attachment 1):
• New Initiatives —This section should be used to outline any new initiatives the board or commission
would like to take pursue during the upcoming year.
• Ongoing Responsibilities —This section should be used to document the board or commission's
ongoing responsibilities. Ongoing responsibilities include items that are repeated on a regular or
annual basis, or regulatory functions that are delegated to the board or commission.
• Other Work Plan Ideas Considered for Current Year or Future Years — This section should be used as a
"parking lot" for ideas that were considered during the work planning process. Ideas that the board
and commission wants to hold for consideration for future years should also be included in this
section.
Some boards and commission have few ongoing responsibilities and most of their work will fall into the
initiatives category. Other boards and commissions have significant ongoing responsibilities and may
only be able to tackle only one or two new initiatives each year.
Council Review and Approval
The Council schedules a meeting in September to meet with Board and Commission Chair regarding
their proposed work plan. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Board or Commission proposed
new initiatives and ongoing responsibilities for the upcoming year. The Council also reviews any ideas
discussed by the Board or Commission but not placed on the work plan. In late September and October,
the Council has additional discussions about city-wide priorities, the budget and the allotment of staff
time. It is possible that the Council will add, delete or re -prioritize items on board or commission work
plans based on these discussions. The Council approves and returns work plans to boards and
commissions during the month of November.
Mid -Year Modifications
Work plans can be modified, to add or delete items, one of three ways. First, work plans can be modified
by mutual agreement during a joint work session. Second, if immediate approval is important, the board
or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for council approval at a
council meeting. Lastly, the city council can direct a change to the work plan.
15
Missing a projected target completion date is not a reason to amend the work plan. It is understood that
these dates are projections and that occasionally items will be delayed or carried over to a subsequent
year. However, Boards and Commissions should make sure that their meeting minutes including updates
on the status of work plan items.
Attachments:
Attachment 1— 2013 Annual Work Plan
16
2013 New Initiative Target Completion Budget Staff Support Required Council
Date Required Approval
2013 New Initiative Target Completion Budget Staff Support Required Council
Date Required Approval
2013 New Initiative Target Completion Budget Staff Support Required Council
Date Required Approval
2013 New Initiative Target Completion Budget Staff Support Required Council
Date Required Approval
2013 New Initiative Target Completion Budget Staff Support Required Council
Date Required Approval
v
O
cu
v
O
0
40 3
�
L
3 O.
m
II.
CL
CL
U Q
U
Q
v
O
cu
v
L
L
40 3
4p 3
c
m
cr
a
a
cc
m I=
�=
C .
O
C
O
CL
CL
Q
Q
3
110
�
aj
tA
4
Z
Z
__
MM
(A
Ln
O
O
cu
CU
a .L
a .L
40 3
4p 3
c
m
cr
H D
in
m 0
m I=
O
O
a
a
Q-
O.
O
U
IIIH
O
U
4ap a
m
CauO a
H D
in
rr
TO
m
�=
�=
C .
C
C
in
3
3
110
�
aj
Z
Z
__
MM
O
N •'
N
program or me Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
f
GreenStep Cities after Two Years: Observations and Accomplishments
June 2012
Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program provided
at no charge to help cities achieve their sustainability goals. Cities proceed at their own pace,
choosing from among 28 best practices, each of which can be implemented by completing — at a 1,
2, or 3 -star level -- one or more specific actions from a list of 4-8 actions. These actions are tailored
to all cities, focus on cost savings and energy use reduction, and encourage civic innovation.
➢ Visit www.MnGreenStep.ora to learn more, to see city -reported action detail on past and
present accomplishments, and to learn how your city can become a GreenStep City.
47 city councils have joined the GreenStep program. As a group. GreenStep Cities are:
• Located all over the state, in all quadrants.
• Large and small, including Rochester (over 100,000 people) and Milan (326 people).
• Statistically larger in population than the average Minnesota city.
• Statistically younger -- with a higher population in the 15-34 age range -- than the
average Minnesota city.
• Motivated by cost savings and peer recognition among other reasons.
• Driven by a strong internal city organizational culture, which includes citizen
commissions.
• Valuing the coherence the program brings to what are sometimes fragmented activities.
4 cities have achieved Step Three, the highest current level of GreenStep recognition:
• Eagan, Edina, Falcon Heights and Saint Anthony.
• 14 Step Two cities are recognized by the League of MN Cities, having implemented 4, 6 or
8 best practices (depending on city capacity/category). 11 Step 2 cities since June 2011.
• 29 Step One cities (20 since June 2011) are recognized, having joined the program.
806 GreenStep actions have been completed. Top non -required actions are: CRO J`1,
MCI
• Expanding local food access, becoming a Tree City USA, promoting bike/ped/transit,
installing LED traffic signals, and conserving water.
• Top required actions are having a comp plan, erosion ordinance, green purchasing policy.
Minnesota GreenStep Cities grew out of a report to the 2009 Legislature. The program is led by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and governed by a public-private partnership including the MN Division of Energy Resources, the League of MN Cities,
the Clean Energy Resource Teams, the Great Plains Institute, the Izaak Walton League -MN and the Urban Land Institute -MN.
19
r
GreenStep Cities have achieved a number of "firsts:"
✓ EDINA: first commercial PACE (property assessed clean energy) program in MN,
recognized by Environmental Initiative with a 2012 award.
✓ MAPLEWOOD: first city in 20 years to shift to organized residential waste collection,
estimated to save residents approximately $1 million per year and the city money spent on
excessive road wear and tear.
✓ APPLE VALLEY: first BRT (bus rapid transit) system in MN (under construction).
✓ PINE RIVER: first GreenStep City and home to first hot air panels paid for by low-income
heating assistance.
✓ NORTHFIELD: first Transition Town effort in MN, involving alumni of the Blandin
Community Leadership Program.
✓ EDEN PRAIRIE: first LEED (Gold) speculative office building in the Twin Cities; first planned
use of LEED for Neighborhood Development rating in MN for light rail station area.
✓ ELK RIVER: first MN city to replace all traffic signals with cost-saving LED lights.
✓ FALCON HEIGHTS, ST. LOUIS PARK, EDINA: first MN cities to track energy, water, waste
and vehicle miles traveled and normalize data by resident and jobs.
✓ MILAN: first rural MN year-round community -supported lettuce business.
✓ ST. CLOUD: nation's first public bus powered by recycled vegetable oil @ $2.30/gal.
✓ BURNSVILLE: first city sustainability plan in Minnesota.
✓ EAGAN: nation's first Green Globes -certified fire station.
✓ ST. ANTHONY: first MN multi -source parkland watering system (stormwater and filter
backwash from drinking water plant) that reduces groundwater draws by 7 million gal./yr.
✓ LAKE ELMO: first in MN to score in the top 5 in all of the Blue Star City stormwater
assessment categories.
Other selected notable accomplishments by GreenStep Cities:
✓ AUSTIN: biogas generated at wastewater treatment plant burned to help run plant;
greywater used in Hormel Foods restrooms.
✓ KASSON: solar panels installed on city hall will pay back city costs in 12 years.
✓ ROGERS: offers expedited permit review for higher density housing, as well as reduced
sewer and water fees for multi -family developments.
✓ EDEN PRAIRIE: allows residents to view their water consumption history online; city fleet
on -track to increase fuel efficiency 40% over 10 years by 2015.
✓ DELANO: the municipal utility's conservation improvement program achieved deemed
savings of over 48,000 kWh in 2011.
✓ WILLMAR: downtown revitalization using the Minnesota Main Street model is energized
by the Willmar Design Center; municipal utilities generated 7.5 million kWh of renewable
wind in 2011.
✓ OAKDALE: greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for city operations are 15% for
buildings & facilities, 10% for water delivery, 25% for vehicle fleet, 2% for signals.
✓ BURNSVILLE: uses form -based codes for its downtown core; will continue to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from a 2009 baseline by an average annual reduction of 4%
normalized by city employees.
In May 2012 the GreenStep Cities program received awards in the categories of Sustainable Communities and 2012
Partnership of the Year from the Minnesota organization Environmental Initiative. The awards honor partnerships, inspire other
organizations to create similar projects, and encourage collaborative approaches to environmental problem solving. Over 340
attendees at the awards dinner voted among the 15 finalists nominated for the 2012 Partnership of the Year.
20
Minutes for the Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group (RSW WG)
of Edina's Energy and Environment Commission
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Time 7:00 P.M. Location: City Hall, Community Room, 2"d floor
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 by Chair Latham. Members present in addition to Chair Latham were Tim
Rudnicki, Michelle Horan, Melissa Seeley and Sarah Zarrin. Staff present included Solvei Wilmot, Sherry Engelman,
Ross Bintner and Scott Neal. One member of the public was present, Rich Hirstein of Allied Waste Services.
Chair Latham opened the meeting by asking if anyone present had any conflicts of interest to put on the record. All
present indicated that they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
City Manager Scott Neal indicated that he had requested that the staff recommendation for the recycling RFP be tabled on
the June 16 City Council agenda until the August 6 City Council agenda so that the staff could prepare a more complete
staff report by comparing the top two proposer's bids. Allied had originally had the top score for environmental, education
and qualification criteria whereas Waste Management had the lowest bid price. The RSW WG followed by the EEC
would then be asked which bid they would recommend given the staff report, which recommended Allied. In the process
of obtaining clarification on Waste Management's revenue sharing formula, it was discovered that there had been a
misunderstanding as to what the proposed formula was. When the correct formula was used and the household rate
recalculated, staff became aware that the Allied proposal, with its negotiated reduced processing fee, was the lowest bid,
not Waste Management. Foth then revised their consulting report and the staff recommendation continued to be the Allied
proposal. The RSW WG is being asked to fact check, review and comment, and then make a recommendation to the EEC
at their 7-12-12 meeting.
Solvei Wilmot showed a powerpoint presentation in which the Allied and Waste Management bids were reviewed side by
side. She then responded to the RSW WG member's questions.
Going forward in the next RFP, the following recommendations were made:
All expressed an interest in developing a metric for the environmental criteria so that it is not entirely subjective as it is
currently. This would be particularly important should one vendor receive the best environmental score while another
vendor receive the best economic score. Tim Rudnicki recommended that a greater emphasis be placed on greenhouse gas
reduction. Dianne Plunkett Latham recommended that everyone on the staff review team be required to tour all
proposer's facilities. Only Solvei Wilmot and Dianne Plunkett Latham toured all 5 facilities for this RFP
Sarah Zarrin made a motion secogggeo by Melissa Seeley that the RSW WG recommend to EEC that: The WG finds
the revised staff analysis" complete, and that the F.E7�accept the staff recommendation of a contract
with Allied Waste Services. The motion passed 4-1 with Tim Rudnicki voting against it.
A brief discussion was held on the challenges that Golden Valley faced in recently converting from dual to single sort.
Solvei Wilmot expressed confidence that staff could meet all cited challenges. It was anticipated that single sort collection
would begin about October 1, 2012 in the event that the City Council approves the staff recommendation.
A tour of the Sioux composting site in Shakopee was scheduled for Wednesday, August 8 at 10:00 with Mike Whitt.
Solvei, Melissa Seeley, Michelle Horan and Dianne Plunkett Latham can attend. Solvei will check to see if children can
attend. The EEC will be invited to attend. Tuesday through Thursday are the best days for tours at the composting site.
Chair Latham reported on the City park recycling bins. Vince Cockriel has received 10 new bins for this year, which have
already been placed in City parks. Fifteen more recycling bins have been ordered.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne Plunkett Latham
Chair Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group
To: Energy and Environment Commission's Recycling and Solid Waste Work Group
From: Solve! Wilmot, Environmental Health Specialist, Recycling Coordinator
Date: July 9, 2012
RE: Residential Curbside Recycling Collection Proposals
General Information
The current residential curbside recycling collection contract expires, December 31, 2012. As a result a Request For
Proposals (RFP) was developed. At the recommendation of the Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) and the
approval of City Council at the February 21, 2012 work session, rankings were determined using the best value process.
The best value weighting for the proposals was divided into four categories: Environment 40%, Economics 40%,
Education 15% and Qualifications 5%.
In addition, Council supported EEC recommendation to hire a consultant to aid in the development of the RFP and
analysis of the proposals. Dan Krivit, Senior Project Manager, Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC was contracted
to provide these services.
The RFP included questions developed by the EEC and the Recycling and Solid Waste Work Group. The questions were
to determine the Best Value ranking for Environment, Economics, Education and Qualifications. The RFP for Residential
Curbside Recycling Collection Service was presented to the City Council on March 20, 2012 and was approved by Council
for release.
Four companies submitted Residential Curbside Recycling proposals: Allied Waste Services (Allied), Randy's
Environmental Services, Tennis Sanitation and Waste Management. None of the proposals included weekly dual stream
collection, only every other week single sort collection service was offered.
The Environment, Education and Qualifications portion of the proposals were reviewed by a review committee
consisting of Sherry Engelman, Community Health Administrator; Lt. Mike Nibbe, Police; and Solvei Wilmot,
Environmental Health Specialist and Recycling Coordinator. The Economic analysis was provided by the consultant, Dan
Krivit.
Mr. Krivit compiled the outcomes from the review committee and economic analysis. The Best Value ranking
determined that Allied ranked number 1. They had the best Environmental, Education and Qualification score, but
ranked 2"d on the Economic score.
At the May 15, 2012, City Council meeting, staff was authorized to enter into contract negotiations with the top ranked
Best Value company in order to negotiate the Economic portion to a better score.
During the negotiations, Allied Waste Services reduced the cost for processing the recyclables from $95/ton to $74/ton.
In addition, it was discovered that the company that had received the best Economic score (Waste Management) had
discrepancies in their proposal regarding the revenue share formula. A clarification from Waste Management revealed
their intent to use an alternate revenue share formula. The alternate formula results in less revenue back to the City.
When the formula is applied to the Economic analysis process, Waste Management no longer has the best Economic
score.
The final score results in Allied Waste Services having the Best Value score in all categories: Environmental, Education,
Qualifications and Economics.
As a result, Staff is recommending Allied Waste Services for the Residential Curbside Recycling Service contract.
SINGLE STREAM
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE
RECYCLING COLLECTION AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT dated , 2012, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a
Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities, Eden Prairie (the
"Contractor").
RECITALS
A. The Contractor desires to provide single stream recycling collection services to residents
of the City of Edina.
B. The City desires to provide these services for the health, safety and welfare of its
residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE
PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the "Contract
Documents," all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the parties as if they
were set verbatim and in full herein:
A. This Agreement.
B. Addendum A to the City of Edina Request for Proposals (RFP) for Residential Curbside
Recycling Services dated April 11, 2012.
C. Request for Proposals (RFP) for Residential Curbside Recycling Services March 13,
2012.
D. Contractor's Proposal for the City of Edina, MN for Residential Curbside Recycling
Services
In the event of a conflict among the provisions of the Contract Documents, the order in which they are
listed above shall control in resolving any such conflicts with Contract Document "A" having the first
priority and Contract Document "D" having the last priority.
7057982.1
2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR. The Contractor shall provide the goods, services,
and perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
3. DEFINITIONS.
A. Recyclable Materials: Means all items of refuse designated by Contractor and City to be
part of an authorized recycling program and which are intended for transportation,
processing, and re -manufacturing or reuse and include the following:
• Boxboard packaging: except for boxes that are made for storage in refrigerator or
freezer.
• Corrugated cardboard: unless contaminated with food, wax -coated or plastic coated.
• Glass containers: all glass food and beverage containers.
• Metal containers: aluminum, steel, bimetal food and beverage containers, foil and foil
trays.
• Mixed paper: direct mail, envelopes, school and office paper, receipts and bills, hard and
soft -covered books, paper bags, notebooks, magazines, catalogs and phone books, and
shredded paper.
• Newspaper: including all paper inserts.
• Other Recyclable Materials may also include other materials as mutually agreed upon
by the City and Contractor. Recyclable materials also includes any and all solid waste
items designated by the Hennepin County Environmental Services Department to be part
of an authorized recycling program and which are intended for transportation, processing,
and re -manufacturing or reuse.
• Plastic: plastic containers #1 - #7, i.e. bottles, cups, food containers, yogurt cups milk
jugs except plastic containers that had hazardous waste.
• Aseptic, gable —topped and wet strength beverage packaging.
• Any additions or exclusions as agreed upon by Contractor and City.
B. Recycling Container: Means a cart with a lid, and wheels, minimum size of 30 gallon in
which recyclable materials can be stored and later placed at the curb or alley for
collection as specified by the City. The container shall be properly marked for recycling.
C. Single Stream Recycling Collection Service: Residents will be instructed to commingle
all recyclable materials in one container that will be picked up every other week by
Contractor. Contractor will pick up all recyclable material placed in and next to
recycling containers at Certified Dwelling Units and other City designated collection
stops in the City of Edina.
D. Certified Dwelling Unit (CDU): Means a single family home and each residential unit in
a building up to an eight-plex, or townhouse complex. Residential units in structures
7057982.1 2
(other than townhouses) containing more than eight dwelling units may be designated as
CDU's upon mutual agreement by the City and the Contractor, Exhibit D.
E. Contractor: Means person or persons authorized by the City to perform recycling
collection services on prescribed routes within collection districts within the City of
Edina, which for purposes of this Agreement is Allied Waste Services of North America,
LLC.
F. Collection Hours: Means the time period during which collection of recyclable material
is authorized in the City.
G. Missed Collection: Means the failure of the Contractor to provide recycling collection
service to a CDU or other City designated collection stop within the recycling district
during collection hours on the scheduled collection day.
H. Holidays: Means any of the following: New Year's Day, President's Day, Memorial
Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas
Day.
I. Scheduled Collection Day: Means the day or days of the week on which recycling
collection service by the Contractor is to occur, as specified in the contract with the City,
see Exhibit C. If a Holiday occurs on a weekday, the collection for each day of that week
after the Holiday will be made one (1) working day later. Except if a Holiday falls on a
weekend day, then collection will be provided on the scheduled collection day.
4. CONTRACTOR'S COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS.
A. Residential Curbside Recycling Collection Program.
1. Frequency of Residential Collection: Residential recycling collection shall occur
biweekly.
2. Residential Collection Hours: Collection shall commence no earlier than 7:00
a.m. local time and shall be completed by 7:00 p.m. collection day. Residents
will be required to have materials placed at the collection point by 7:00 a.m. on
the scheduled collection day.
3. Compliance with Laws and Regulations: In providing services hereunder, the
Contractor shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining
to the provision of services to be provided hereunder. Any violation shall
constitute a material breach of this Agreement. This contract shall be controlled
by the laws of the State of Minnesota, and ordinances of the City of Edina.
4. Weighing of Loads, Reporting Requirements and Promotional Material: The
Contractor will keep accurate records consisting of an approved weight slip with
the date, time, collection route, driver's identification, vehicle number, rate and
gross weight, net weight and number of route stops for each loaded vehicle. A
7057982.1 3
detailed monthly report shall be provided to the City that identifies total tonnage
activity by commodity. In addition an annual report shall be provided. (See
Exhibit A). This report should include all curbside recycling activity.
Promotional Material: The Contractor and the City will cooperate in developing a
comprehensive on-going promotional program to encourage participation in the
recycling program of the City.
The Contractor will be responsible for providing and incur the production and
printing costs of informational material outlined in the Proposal submitted by the
Contractor during the change from a weekly bin collection to an every other week
single stream collection.
The Contractor will be responsible for providing and incur the production,
printing and mailing costs of an annual public education piece. The Contractor
shall confer with the City on any draft publications that are distributed within the
City regarding the curbside recycling program. The City will have final approval
before printing. The Contractor shall submit a draft of any public education
literature for approval by the City, at least one (1) month before printing and
release of any such literature:
(a) The education piece will contain at least the following information:
a. The Collection Week for each Dwelling,
b. The Collection Point,
c. The Recyclables to be collected and manner of preparation,
d. Holiday and Missed collection information,
e. Telephone numbers to call for information or service problems
(b) Informational tags for distribution by drivers to those residents who have
place non-recyclables or improperly prepared recyclables for collection.
5. Recycle Cart Purchase Delivery and Bin Collection: The Contractor agrees to, at
its expense, purchase, deliver, service and repair, and maintain sufficient cart
inventory to meet supply and demand needs for the City of Edina Recycling
CDU's, estimated to be 14,250 in number, Exhibit D. The Contractor shall
initially deliver one 65 -gallon cart to each CDU and have a sufficient inventory of
30 -gallon and 90 -gallon carts available for delivery and switch -out with the 65 -
gallon carts per resident/customer request. The standard 65 -gallon cart shall be
smooth for ease in cleaning. The cart shall be blue with a green lid and be
uniform and consistent in color and design and approved instruction label
imbedded into each lid, so as to be easily identified by the resident and the
Contractor driver as the container for recyclable materials.
Recycling Bin Collection: The Contractor agrees to collect and recycle the 18
gallon bins previously used for recycling. The Contractor will collect bins from
mutually agreed upon residential drop-off locations during the month of October
2012, and provide roll -off dumpster.
7057982.1 4
6. Recycling Cart Maintenance/Replacement: The driver is required to report to the
Contractor the location of any cart that is damaged. The Recycling Coordinator
will notify the Contractor by email of any cart damage or request for change of
cart size that is reported/requested to them by customers/residents. Any damaged
cart or cart request will be repaired or replaced by the Contractor within two (2)
weeks of the report.
7. Point of Collection: Most residential recycling collection will occur at the same
location from where the regular refuse is collected, generally the street curbside or
alley. Carts shall be placed with the handle toward the house and lid opening
toward the street or alley. The driver is required to place the emptied cart
back/down in the same location as set by resident.
Recycling carts/containers for municipal recycling collection shall be placed at
agreed upon specific locations as determined by the Contractor and City. All
carts/containers shall be returned to the specific location after completion of
collection.
8. Ownership of Recyclable Materials: All recyclable materials for collection shall
remain the responsibility and in the ownership of the resident until handled for
collection by the Contractor. At the point of collection the recyclable materials
become the property of the Contractor. Any person or persons taking recyclable
materials from a curbside container without explicit permission of the resident or
municipality will be in violation of local ordinance and subject to penalty. The
Contractor shall report to the Recycling Coordinator any instances of suspected
scavenging or unauthorized removal of recyclable materials from any collection
container.
9. Route Management and Customer Service: The Contractor shall, at all times,
provide the City's Recycling Coordinator with a lead route/driver supervisor who
is accessible to the Contractor dispatch department via two way communications
and to the Recycling Coordinator to handle route and collection issues in a timely
fashion. The Contractor shall have on duty Monday through Friday from 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. a dispatch customer service representative to receive customer
calls and route issues. The Contractor shall provide a 24 hour answering service
line or device to receive customer calls. The Route Supervisor and all collection
vehicles must be equipped with 2 -way communication devices.
10. Procedure for Unacceptable Materials, Materials Outside Cart and Unreachable
Carts: If the Contractor determines that a resident has set out unacceptable
recyclable materials or other materials that are not recyclable materials, left
recyclable materials outside of the cart, or has positioned the cart so that it is
unreachable with the mechanical arm, the Contractor shall use the following
procedures:
7057982.1 5
a. The Contractor shall collect all the recyclable materials and leave an
"education tag" provided by the Contractor attached to the handle of the
recycling container indicating acceptable materials, the proper method of
preparation and the proper placement of the cart.
b. The driver shall record the address of repeat educational tags notifications.
11. Procedure for Complaints -Questions -Missed Collections A complaint of service
or missed collection is a complaint received by the Contractor from either the
customer or the Administration Office. If the report is for a missed stop and is
received by the Contractor before 12:00 p.m. on a scheduled working day, the
Contractor is required to return to the complaint address and complete the
collection. If the report is registered after 12:00 p.m. on a scheduled working day,
the Contractor is required to return to the complaint address by 12:00 noon the
following working day.
12. Clean up Responsibilities: The Contractor shall adequately clean up any
recyclable material spilled or blown during the course of collection and/or hauling
operations. All collection vehicles shall be equipped with at least one broom and
one shovel for use in cleaning up material spillage. The Contractor shall have no
responsibility to remove or clean up any items, which are not recyclable materials.
13. Non -Completion of Collection and Extension of Collection Hours: The
Contractor shall inform the City of the areas not completed, the reason for non -
completion, and the expected time of completion.
14. Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements: Each collection vehicle shall be
equipped with the following:
a. A two way communication system.
b. A first aid kit.
C. An approved 2AIOBC dry chemical fire extinguisher.
d. Warning flashers.
e. Overhead strobe light.
f. "Reverse" audio warning alarm to indicate movement in reverse.
g. Signs on the rear of the vehicle which state "This Vehicle Makes Frequent
Stops."
h. Shall be equipped with some form of monitoring system for the driver to
observe the materials as the cart is being dumped into the hopper.
i. Hazard flares and cones.
j. A broom and a shovel for cleaning up spills.
k. "Absorb" pillows or dry product adequate to absorb/contain any oil/liquid
spill from collection vehicle.
7057982.1 6
All required equipment must be in proper working order at all times. All vehicles
must be maintained in proper working order and be clean and free from odor as
much as possible. All collection vehicles shall be uniformly painted and the paint
shall be in good condition. The Contractor's name shall be clearly visible from
all sides of the vehicle, along with the Contractor's phone number, and the vehicle
ID number.
15. Driver Duties and Responsibilities: The Contractor shall be responsible for
ensuring that there is sufficient personnel and equipment to fulfill the
requirements and specifications of this contract proposal, and that all personnel
are trained both in program operations and in customer service and insure that all
personnel maintain a positive attitude with the public and in the work place and
shall:
a. Conduct themselves at all times in a courteous manner and use no abusive
or foul language.
b. Be clean and presentable in appearance, as so far as possible.
C. Wear a uniform and employee identification badge or name tag.
d. Drive in a safe and considerate manner.
e. Manage carts in a careful manner, setting them back in place so as to
avoid spillage and littering or damage to container.
f. Perform their work in a neat and quiet manner, monitor for any spillage
and be responsible for cleaning up any litter or breakage spilled in
collection and hauling operations.
g. Record all addresses that could not be collected and reasons, turn list into
dispatch at end of each collection day.
h. Attach an education tab to the container identifying problems and how to
resolve them.
i. Collect and transport recyclable materials according to all existing laws
and ordinances, and future amendments thereto, of the State of Minnesota
and local governing bodies.
j. Report all damage to property.
16. Holidays: The Contractor will observe all Holidays on which no recycling
collection service will be performed. When a Holiday occurs on a scheduled
collection day, the collection for each day of that week after the Holiday shall be
made one (1) working day later.
17. Contract Lentgth: This contract shall commence October 1, 2012 and shall be for
7 years, 3 months ending December 31, 2019 and shall have options upon mutual
agreement of the parties for renewal with the terms of 5 or 7 years each.
18. Rate and Scholarship: The price per CDU (Exhibit D) for single -sort curbside
collection service per month from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2019
for the City shall be:
7057982.1 7
Year
Price per Curbside CDU per Month
Oct 1, 2012
$2.40
2013
$2.40
2014
$2.47
2015
$2.54
2016
$2.61
2017
$2.68
2018
$2.76
2019
$2.84
19. Revenue Sharing and Process fees: The City shall receive a 100% revenue share
on the Net Proceeds (defined in Exhibit B) of the sale of all recyclable materials.
In no case shall the Net Proceeds be negative (i.e., the City shall not be charged if
value of revenue from sale of all recyclable materials is less than processing fees).
Payments shall be made on a bi-annual basis per calendar year.
The per ton processing fee and formula for sharing Net Proceeds as described in
Exhibit B, attached and made a part of this Agreement.
Scholarship: The Contractor has agreed to provide four $500 scholarships
annually for the length of this contract. The money is to be awarded annually to
an Edina High School student through the Edina Education Fund. The criteria for
the scholarship will be determined by the Edina Recycling Coordinator.
20. Default. Any of the following occurrences, conditions, or acts shall be deemed a
"Default" under this Agreement:
a. If either party fails to observe or perform its obligations under this
Agreement and does not cure such failure within ten (10) days from its
receipt of written notice of breach without, however, limiting any other
rights available to parties pursuant to any other provisions of this
Agreement.
b. Except as expressly limited hereby, City and Contractor shall have such
remedies for the default of the other party hereto as may be provided at
7057982.1 8
law or equity following written notice of such default and failure to cure
the same within ten (10) days.
21. Termination. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may be
terminated without any penalty or further liability as follows:
a. Upon ten (10) days written notice in the event of a default (as defined
above);
b. Upon ninety (90) days written notice by Contractor, if Contractor is unable
to obtain or maintain any license, permit or other governmental approval
necessary to the operation of the Contractor's business;
C. Upon ninety (90) days written notice by City if it determines that
Contractor has failed to comply with applicable ordinances, or state or
federal law, or any conditions attached to governmental approvals granted
thereunder, after a public hearing before the City's Council.
22. Taxes. Contractor shall pay any taxes, of any nature, due, owing or levied in
association with its services pursuant to this Agreement.
23. Insurance.
a. The Contractor must maintain the types and amounts of insurance set forth
in the RFP with the following exceptions:
i. Contractor shall not be required to provide coverage for
$50,000 in medical expenses per Section 20.2 of the RFP;
ii. Contractor shall not be required to provide Professional
Liability Insurant or Errors and Omission coverage, so Section
20.4 of the RFP is struck in its entirety as are any references to
such insurance in the RFP;
iii. Contractor will provide evidence of insurance on an
ACORD form (versus a City -approved) insurance certificate.
iv. The second and third sentences in Section 20.5 of the RFP
are struck in their entirety.
V. The fourth sentence of Section 20.5 of the RFP is deleted in
its entirety to read as follows: "The successful Proposer shall
provide City with a certificate of insurance upon written request
from the City."
vi. The last sentence of Section 20.5 is deleted in its entirety.
b. Adjustment to Insurance Coverage Limits. The coverage limits shall be
increased at the time of any rate adjustment by the Consumer Price Index.
C. Additional Insured - Certificate of Insurance. The Contractor shall
provide, prior to starting services, evidence of the required insurance in
the form of a Certificate of Insurance issued by a company (rated A- or
7057982.1 9
better), licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, which includes
all coverages required in this paragraph. Contractor will name the City as
an Additional Insured on the General Liability and Commercial
Automobile Liability Polices. The Certificate(s) shall also provide the
coverage may not be cancelled without thirty (30) days prior written
notice to the City.
24. Indemnification Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City
and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and
against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of
action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of
litigation, which may be asserted against or incurred by City or for which City
may be liable in the performance of this Agreement, except those which arise
solely from the negligence, willful misconduct, or other fault of City. Contractor
shall defend the City against all claims arising out of the performance of this
Agreement.
25. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder
shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed,
certified mail, return receipt requested, or sent by overnight carrier to the
following addresses:
If to City, to: City of Edina
4801 W. 40th Street
Edina, Minnesota, 55424
Attention: Solvei Wilmot
If to Contractor, to: Allied Waste Services
c/o Rich Hirstein
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
26. Assi nment. This Agreement, or rights thereunder, may not be sold, assigned, or
transferred at any time by Contractor without the written consent of the City,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
27. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties, their respective successors, personal representatives and
assigns.
28. Miscellaneous.
a. The prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be entitled to
its reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs, including appeals, if any.
b. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the
parties, and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements.
7057982.1 10
CITY:
CITY OF EDINA
AND
These are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth
herein. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and
executed by both parties.
C. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
d. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which
shall remain in full force and effect.
CONTRACTOR:
M.
James Hovland, Mayor Bryan Zimmerman, Area President
Scott Neal, City Manager
7057982.1 11
Exhibit A
Monthly Reports. The Contractor will submit to the City monthly reports. At a minimum, the
Contractor shall include the following information in its monthly reports:
(a) Gross amounts of materials collected, by recyclable material (in tons).
(b) Net amounts of materials marketed, by recyclable material (in tons)
(c) Amounts stored, by recyclable material, with any notes as to unusual conditions (in tons)
(d) Amounts of "process residuals" disposed (in tons)
(e) Recycling service fee (based upon contracted price per ton).
(f) Revenue share back to the City (if any)
Monthly reports hall be due to the City by the 15th day of each month.
Annual Reports. The Contractor will submit an annual report to the City by Feb 1st of each
calendar year for the previous year collections. The annual report shall include:
(a) Annual sum total of tons of materials collected
(b) Set out rates and participation rates.
(c) Annual progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from activities under this contract. The
Contractor must indicate what model vehicles they use in their fleet and fuel type. The Contractor
must also describe other means of energy conservation on the Edina collection routes and at the
materials processing facility.
(d) Annual summary of complaints received, methods used to handle and respond to such complaints,
and summary of complaint types.
(e) Contractor's recommendations for improvement in the City's recycling program including adding
materials to be collected, enhanced public education, multifamily recycling and other opportunities.
(h) Response to any City staff recommendations for Contractor's service improvements.
(i) Other opportunities for improvement with the remaining years under the contract.
Annual reports shall be due by January 31 each year.
7057982.1 12
Exhibit B
Published Industry Market Indices
Product Mix
Market Indicator
Mix Glass
Reviewed Annually
HDPE Natural
Waste News 1St Issue High
HDPE Pigmented
Waste News 1 st Issue High
PET
Waste News 1St Issue High
Residual Garbage
Hennepin County Rate
Tin
Average Monthly Sales Price
Aluminum
AMM High
OCC
OBM#8 High
Mixed Paper
OBM #8 High
ONP
OBM #8 High
Revenue Share
Processing Fees
Oct. 1,2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
All recycling
materials
100%110%
$92.50
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Processing Fees
Determining Revenue share
The Contractor shall pay a net revenue after processing fees from the sale of the recyclable material that
is collected. The Contractor shall use the agreed upon Published Market indices for the sale of the
materials.
Determining Materials Composition as Collected
The Contractor shall conduct at least one materials composition analysis of the City's recyclable
materials during the term of the contract any and every extension of this Agreement to estimate the
relative amount by weight of each recyclable commodity from each program element by grade or offer a
suitable alternative to a composition analysis. The results of this analysis shall include:
(1) percent by weight of each recyclable commodity by grade (including materials deemed
unacceptable) as collected from the City program element;
(2) relative change compared to the previous year's composition; and
(3) a description of the methodology used to calculate the composition, including number of samples,
dates weighed, and City route(s) used for sampling. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy
7057982.1 13
Oct. 1, 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Per ton for each
recycling commodity
$92.50
$92.50
$92.50
$92.50
$92.50
$92.50
$92.50
$92.50
Determining Revenue share
The Contractor shall pay a net revenue after processing fees from the sale of the recyclable material that
is collected. The Contractor shall use the agreed upon Published Market indices for the sale of the
materials.
Determining Materials Composition as Collected
The Contractor shall conduct at least one materials composition analysis of the City's recyclable
materials during the term of the contract any and every extension of this Agreement to estimate the
relative amount by weight of each recyclable commodity from each program element by grade or offer a
suitable alternative to a composition analysis. The results of this analysis shall include:
(1) percent by weight of each recyclable commodity by grade (including materials deemed
unacceptable) as collected from the City program element;
(2) relative change compared to the previous year's composition; and
(3) a description of the methodology used to calculate the composition, including number of samples,
dates weighed, and City route(s) used for sampling. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy
7057982.1 13
of each analysis. City staff will help coordinate the sampling and shall be invited by the Contractor to
be present for the sorting.
Exhibit C
Collection Route Map (by collection day of the week)
7057982.1 14
City of Edina N
Residential Recycling W+E
SS
Pick -Up Schedule E.
Exhibit D
Multi — Family Housing on Recycling Pickup
7057982.1 15
Name Address Zip Units
Apartments, 8 or fewer units:
6055-6141 Blake Rd Road
55436
5107 49h St W
55436
5
5115 49' St W
55436
5
5148 Hankerson
55436
4
4200 Valley View Rd
55424
4
4240 Valley View Rd
55424
4
4246 Valley View Rd
55424
3
4000 Mavelle Drive
55435
4
7101 Lynmar Lane
55435
4
4300 Parklawn Avenue
55435
8
4200 64"' Street
55424
3
55439
Apartments Subtotal
44
Condo, 8 or fewer units:
55439
15
Edina Morningside 4360 France Ave
55410
8
Valley View Est 6201 Brookview Ave 55424
5
6800 Langford Drive
Condos Subtotal
13
Townhomes•
Blake Ridge
6055-6141 Blake Rd Road
55436
31
Cahill of Edina
7400-7486 Cahill Rd
55439
44
Colony
6330 Barrie Road
55435
236
Dewey Hill III Shaughnessy Rd & Lochmere Terrace
55439
34
Edina Mills
4699-12 France Ave
55410
7
Gleason Court
6400-6519 Gleason Ct
55436
28
Habitat Ct.
6100-6121 Habitat Ct.
55436
18
Highcroft
5501-65 70'x' St W
55439
21
Highlander
7032 Cahill Rd
55439
17
Lewis Ridge
7220-7240 Lewis Ridge
55439
15
Londonderry
Duncan Ln, Tucker Ln
55436
36
Manor Homes Edina
6800 Langford Drive
55436
144
Nine Mile Village
Falcon, Oriole, Pheasant,
Red Fox, Sandpiper
(55436)
97
Pondwood
7700-7744 Pondwood Dr
55439
24
Summit Hill
5205 Interlachen Blvd.
55436
5
Tanglewood Court
7700-7733 Tanglewood
55436
32
Vernon Court
6200-6216 Vernon Ct.
55436
5
Vernon Hills
Vernon Hills Road
55436
16
Vernon Woods
6703-6711 Vernon Ave
55436
5
Waterford Court
6100-6110 Waterford
55436
10
Wellesley Place
1-8 Wellesley Place
55436
8
White Oaks
4620-4626 France Ave
55439
4
Woodview Court
7650-7677 Woodview Ct
55436
23
Townhomes Subtotal 8M
GRAND TOTAL Multi -Unit 949
Note: Habitat Ct., Waterford Ct, Gleason Ct., Tanglewood Ct and Vernon Hills function as townhomes but are classified R-2 by City – two
unit side by side buildings, zero lot line.
7057982.1 16
Certified Dwelling
The total certified dwelling unit number is derived from the utility billing reports, 2011.
Dwelling
Number
Single Family
13,298
Multi -unit up to 8 units
949
Total CDU's
14,247
7057982.1 17
2013-2020
Residential Curbside
Recycling
Contract
�1
Cn
www.EdinaMN.gov
.
o
Background *I
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was developed
with input from:
— Recycling and Solid Waste Workgroup
— Energy and Environment Commission
— Staff
— Consultant
March 20, 2012 Council approved RFP and
authorized release.
www.EdinaMN.gov
RFP Scope
• Residential Curbside Recycling Collection
• Revenue Sharing
• Proposal options:
— Two -sort
— Single -sort
• Best Value analysis, directed by Council
includes:
— Environment 40%
— Economics 40%
— Education 15%
�
91NA
o e " tit
Cn
• r�rORI'OR1'��9
www.EdinaMN.gov
Proposers
• Allied Waste Services
• Randy's Environmental Services
• Tennis Sanitation, LLC
• Waste Management, Inc.
Cn
*0
• �N�'oxroxn'��'v
ItltlH
www.EdinaMN.gov
Proposers
Only received single sort collection proposals
No two sort proposals were received. Therefore
no analysis was possible for two sort system.
www.EdinaMN.gov
o� Ce:.,
Review Process C0%dd'-M �O•
• Staff team to evaluate Environment, Education
and Qualifications based on answers to questions
that were included in the RFP:
— Solvei Wilmot, R.S. Environmental Health
Specialist/Recycling Coordinator
— Sherry Engelman, R.S., Community Health
Administrator
— Lt. Michael Nibbe
www.EdinaMN.gov
�1
Cn
• `���OAPORA��O
IdEH
Environmental Scorings
*Ability to collect required recyclables and additional material
*Residuals (collected but not recyclable)
*Alternative fuels
*Pollution emissions (Greenhouse Gas - GHG)
*Efficiencies: Facility and Processing
•Markets: Local, domestic or international
•Green and sustainable initiatives
�` www.EdinaMN.gov
Education Scorings
•Public education & awareness
•Increased tonnage collected
•Improved quality of material collected
Qualification Scorings
•Ability to provide service: curbside and customer
service
•Capacity
•References
www.EdinaMN.gov
o e ,,'A
Cn
�• `N�OHI'OA���9 /�
eea
Economic Review Process
Dan Krivit, Senior Project Manager, Foth
Infrastructure and Environment, LLC.
*Provided Economic analysis.
•Determined Best Value rankings by compiling results
of all four categories
www.EdinaMN.gov
Best Value Ranking Based on Proposals
Allied Waste 1st 39 15 5 27 86
Waste
Management
2nd 29
11
E
MA
www.EdinaMN.gov
Best Value Ranking After Negotiations
01
cn
Allied Waste 1st 39 15 5 40
Waste 2nd 29 11 4 34
Management
EK
www.EdinaMN.gov
Proposed Monthly Household Rate*
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Allied Waste
Services 2.40 2.47 2.54 2.61 2.68 2.76 2.84
Waste
Management 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.80 2.88 2.97 3.06
*Revenue share is not factored in.
www.EdinaMN.gov
Cn
• l���UHe'ORPT�9
ItldO
Annual Total Collection Service Cost*
(*before factoring in revenue sharing)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Allied Waste
Services $410,314 $422281 $434249 $446216 $458184 $471861 $485538
Waste
Management $437668 $451345 $465022 $478699 $592376 $507763 $523150
Total
$3,128,643
$3,356,023
Total households (HH) single family, duplex and multi -units up to 8 units: 14,247 HH units served
www.EdinaMN.gov
Proposed Processing
Fees
• f NCORPON`Ct�
�aee
Allied Waste $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00
Negotiated
Waste
Management
$52.00 $53.56 $55.17 $56.83 $58.64 $60.30 $62.11
www.EdinaMN.gov
'w91NA �l'�
o e }'A
Revenue Share
,edd
Revenue share is based on the recyclable commodities that
are collected at the curb, processed and sold.
Variables to revenue share:
— Market prices
— Indices price used to calculate commodity value: High
or Low Average
— Volumes collected
— Processing costs
— Formula used for revenue share
These variables impact the dollar amount that would be
shared with the City. As a result, the dollar amount from the
revenue share amount is not a consistent number.
www.EdinaMN.gov
%13
Revenue share formula in the RFP requested the revenue be
based on :
Total value of commodities - processing cost = Revenue to be
shared by percentage
Allied Waste Services proposal was submitted according to
the RFP.
However, Waste Management submitted an alternate
revenue share formula:
80% of the Revenue of the total value of the commodities -
processing cost = Revenue share
www.EdinaMN.gov
Example of Revenue Share
Total Commodity Value for one month: $50,000
Tons collected for one month: 400
Allied Waste Services
Processing fee: $74/ton
Total commodity $50,000
Less processing $29,600
Revenue share
$20,400
Waste Management 80 %
Processing fee: $52.00/ton
Total commodity
$40,000
Less processing
$20,800
Revenue share
$19,200
www.EdinaMN.gov
Proposed 7 yr Contract Total*
Allied Waste
Annual average $ 326,595
7 yr Total $2,286,163
Waste Management
Annual Average $ 372,641
Tyr Total
$2,608,486
o e
Uj
o
•
'Con
iaaa
Avg HH cost
avg. per month $1.91
avg. per month $2.17
*Actual cost to the City will vary due to fluctuating revenue share.
www.EdinaMN.gov
V
Implement contract early, before
�,91N�1j�
o� e f T
GTE��
January 1, 2013
— Cost savings: current contract per household
(HH) rate $2.81* down to $2.40** with new
contract
— Increase revenue share 100% (current contract
60%)
sa.rnpmptiamvMgwssi%fm4Z4i i +,;t)nt contraAew
• ';' r 1 1
HH cost per month: $39,891
$34,193
Less revenue share 60% 960
1 000
monthly cost to City $38,931
less 100%
* Dual -sort recycling collection
"Single -sort recycling collection
www.EdinaMN.gov
TY OF EDINA
4'91�11r1r
oe
Cn
Additional benefits from negotiations
• High side indices for revenue share.
• Adding four $500 Edina High School scholarships
for graduating seniors.
• Added cost of annual direct mailing publication
— Savings of approximately $5,000
www.EdinaMN.gov
V
I
Summary
�91NA.
Cn
lana
Staff and the Foth Infrustructure reviewed each proposal.
Proposals were reviewed carefully, fairly and as per the
Request for Proposals.
Best Environmental Score: Allied Waste Services
Best Education Score: Allied Waste Services
Best Qualifications Score: Allied Waste Services
Best Economic Value Score: Allied Waste Services
Therefore, Staff recommends the overall topped rank
proposer, Allied Waste Services, for the recycling
www.EdinaMN.gov
*Foth Memorandum
Eagle Point II • 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
www.foth.com
July 9, 2012
To: Solvei Wilmot (City of Edina staff)
Cc: Warren Shuros (Foth)
From: Dan Krivit (Foth)
RE: Summary of City of Edina Staff Team Review of
Revised Final 2012 Residential Recycling Proposals
The City of Edina (City) staff contracted with Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
(Foth) to assist the City Staff proposal review team with its review of the proposals submitted
to the City in response to its request for proposals (RFP) for residential recycling services.
This assistance included conducting an independent economic review of proposals submitted
by the respondents. This memo is submitted as a summary of the process and results used by
the City Staff to objectively review, compare and rank the proposals using procedures
specified in the RFP.
Executive Summary
Our understanding is that on May 15, 2012, City Council authorized Staff to conduct
negotiations with the top ranked vendor, Allied Waste Systems (Allied), as per the
procedures in the RFP. As a result of those negotiations, Allied submitted its final and best
offer by improving its pricing by lowering its recyclables processing fee as part of its revenue
sharing formula. This summary includes a revised economic analysis of proposals received,
after incorporating this new proposed Allied price, and the subsequent best value rankings.
Allied is the top ranked vendor both for the overall best value and in terms of the economics
analysis.
Methods
On March 20, 2012, the City released the RFP for residential curbside recycling services. In
the RFP, the City defined its "best value" approach for the review and evaluation of
proposals including definition and weighting of evaluation criteria.
On April 11, the City released an addendum with City responses to prospective proposer
questions. On April 18, four proposals were submitted. On April 19, the City Staff Team,
together with Dan Krivit from Foth, met to briefly skim the proposals for compliance with
requirements of the RFP and agree on a review schedule and process. Over the next six days,
the City Staff Team members reviewed each proposal completely and carefully in regards to
The information contained in this memorandum is considered privileged and confidential
and is intended only for the use of recipients and Foth.
\\MS 1\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysisVuly 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary of City
Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx
the environmental, educational and qualifications criteria in the RFP (See Attachment 1). On
April 27, the City Staff Team met to discuss in detail their individual reviews of each
proposal. Points were allocated according to which proposal would provide the best value
for each criterion. The City Staff Team evaluated and scored the proposals in a fair and
consistent manner. In the economic analysis, the total net costs of each proposal as
calculated by Foth were then presented to the City Staff Team.
Minnesota Statutes and the RFP are explicit about the process and schedule for release of
information about the proposals. Section 5.3, "Proposals to be Held as Non -Public", (page
13) of the RFP states:
"Only the company names of Proposers submitting proposals will be made public
immediately after the proposals are received. All proposal documents shall be held as
nonpublic data until the City completes the negotiations with the selected vendor, subject
to the requirements of the Minnesota Data Practices Act [MN. Statutes 13.591,
Subdivision 3 (b), Data Practices Act.]. "
Results and Discussion
The four proposals submitted (in alphabetical order) were:
• Allied Waste Services (Allied)
Randy's Environmental Services (Randy's)
Tennis Sanitation (Tennis)
Waste Management (WM)
Each proposal packet was very thorough and represented a significant preparation effort. The
City Staff Team accepted all four proposals as being responsive and meeting the minimum
qualifications criteria as specified in the RFP. All four proposals were for single stream
recycling systems. No respondent proposed on the two sort (i.e., dual stream) recycling
system, similar to the system the City currently has in place.
On April 25, the City Staff Team (Team) met to discuss the results of their individual
reviews. The relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal were thoroughly discussed.
Based on individual reviews and collective discussion, points were allocated by the Team for
the environmental, education and qualifications criteria. The Team then discussed Foth's
economic analysis and points were allocated for the proposed prices. Details of each
proposal were discussed and contrasted to the other competing proposals within the context
of each of the four RFP evaluation criteria. Total numeric scoring and rankings of the
proposals were then finalized pursuant to the criteria specified in the RFP. See the RFP
evaluation criteria (Attachment 1) for more details on the list of specific issues covered
within each evaluation category.
Table 1 displays the proposal scorings. Respondents submitted proposal scenarios in direct
response to the specifications of the RFP (defined as a "base" scenario), and/or they
submitted proposal scenarios with variations to RFP specifications (defined as an "alternate"
scenario). Allied (after negotiation) was awarded the most points (99) and Waste
Management (WM) was awarded the second most points (78).
\\MS 1\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary
of City Staff Team review 7-9-12.doex Page 2 of 9
Proposer — Scenario
Randy's — Alternate
(City owns cart after 7 years)
Tennis — Base
(Bi -Weekly, w/ Rev Share)
WM — Alternative
(80% Rev Share)
Allied — Base
(65 -gal carts)
Table 1
Proposal Scorings
Environmental
(40 Points)
Educational
(15 Points)
Qualifications
(5 Points)
Economic
(40 Points)
TOTAL
(100 Points)
27
9
3
8
47
25
9
3
11
48
29
11
4
34
78
39
15
5
40
99
Table 2 displays the summary of proposed net cost for each respondent's lowest cost
scenario. The seven year contract term provided the best value to the City. The total net cost
was calculated for each proposal by the following formula:
1. Proposed collection fees over seven years.
2. Less proposed revenue sharing credits back to the City over seven years.
3. Equals seven year total net cost.
4. Divided by seven to display the annual average cost.
5. Divided by the household count to display the cost per household per month.
Table 2
Summary of Proposed Net Costs
Seven Year Term Annual Average
Proposer 7 -Year Total ($/Year) ($/HH/Mo)
Randy's — Alternate $3,978,000 $570,000 $3.33
(City owns cart after 7 years)
Tennis — Base $3,804,000 $540,000 $3.16
(Bi -Weekly, w/ Rev Share)
WM — Alternative $2,608,000 $370,000 $2.16
(80% Rev Share)
Allied — Base $2,286,000 $330,000 $1.93
(65 -gal carts)
Table 2 displays projected estimates of the total net cost over seven years, the annual average
and the net cost per household per month. These calculated costs are "as proposed" by each
of the respondents and do not necessarily reflect projected or forecasted costs due to variables
such as:
Uncertainty about the actual market value of recyclables in the future;
Changes in the contract number of households served from year to year; and
\\MS 1\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary
of City Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 3 of 9
Uncertainty in the amount of tonnage collected and recycled.
Therefore, Table 2 should be used to compare the costs between respondent proposals, not
necessarily to predict or forecast exact future recycling budgets.
Foth recommends a longer term contract to allow for adequate time for the new single stream
system to be implemented and refined. A longer term contract will also help:
Maximize resident participation and materials recovery;
Stabilize public — private contract partnerships; and
Minimize City administrative costs of going out for RFP on a more frequent basis.
Waste Management (WM) submitted an "80% revenue share" alternate proposal. This WM
revenue share scenario used the following alternate formula:
(Gross revenue X Proposed percent revenue share)
Less processing fees
The formula specified in the RFP, and the method used by other respondents for their "base"
scenarios, called for a more standard formula:
(Gross revenue Less processing fees)
X Proposed percent revenue share
Under either method, WM's proposal would be ranked second to Allied's.
Table 3 displays the proposed collection fees as proposed by each respondent for their lowest
cost scenario under the seven year term option. These are for collection services only and do
not yet factor in proposed revenue share to be credited back to the City. This form and
schedule was specified in the RFP.
Table 3
Proposed Collection Fees - Seven Year Term Option
($ per Household per Month)
Proposer - Scenario
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Randy's — Alternate
$3.48
$3.55
$3.62
$3.69
$3.77
$3.84
$3.92
(City owns cart after 7 years)
Tennis — Base
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.50
$3.50
$4.00
$4.00
(Bi -Weekly, w/ Rev Share)
WM — Alternative
$2.56
$2.64
$2.75
$2.80
$2.88
$2.97
$3.06
(80% Rev Share)
Allied — Base
$2.40
$2.47
$2.54
$2.61
$2.68
$2.76
$2.84
(65 -gal carts)
\\MS 1\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary
of City Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 4 of 9
Table 4 displays the percent revenue share as proposed by each respondent within their
lowest cost scenario. Allied and Randy's used the standard ("base") formula for calculating
revenue share (percent of net revenue after processing fees are subtracted). Tennis proposed
a flat $0.25 per household per month revenue sharing alternate. WM proposed an 80% of
gross revenue before processing fees are subtracted.
Table 4
Percent Revenue Share
(% of Net Revenue After Processing Fees are Subtracted, Except where noted otherwise)
Randy's
80%
Tennis
$0.25 / HH / Mo
WM - Alternate (80% Rev Share)
80% a
Allied
100%
(a) WM's revenue sharing formula is 80% of gross revenue before processing fees are subtracted.
Table 5 displays the proposed processing fees ($ per ton for all recyclable materials) under
each respondent's lowest cost scenario for the seven year option. This form and schedule
was specified in the RFP. The Tennis processing fee shown was included in their proposal
even though they proposed using the flat $0.25 per household per month revenue sharing
alternate revenue share method. Allied's processing fee resulted from recent negotiations
with City Staff and represents their best and final proposal.
Table 5
The complete economic analysis (shown in Table 2) calculated the total net costs to the City
for each proposal under the seven year option considering:
Collection fees (Table 3)
Revenue sharing (Table 4)
Processing fees (Table 5)
The City Staff Team recommends that the City Council authorize execution of a contract
with the top ranked proposer, Allied.
\\MS 1 \MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary
of City Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 5 of 9
Processing Fees($ per ton)
Proposer - Scenario
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2018
2019
Randy's - Alternate
$78.00 $79.56 $81.15 $82.77 $84.43
$86.12
$87.84
(City owns cart after 7 years)
Tennis - Base
$88.00 $88.00 $88.00 $88.00 $88.00
$88.00
$88.00
(Bi -Weekly, w/ Rev Share)
WM - Alternative
$52.00 $53.56 $55.17 $56.83 $58.54
$60.30
$62.11
(80% Rev Share) (a)
Allied - Base
$74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00 $74.00
$74.00
$74.00
(65 -gal carts)
a WM's revenue sharing formula
is 80% of gross revenue before processing fees are subtracted.
The complete economic analysis (shown in Table 2) calculated the total net costs to the City
for each proposal under the seven year option considering:
Collection fees (Table 3)
Revenue sharing (Table 4)
Processing fees (Table 5)
The City Staff Team recommends that the City Council authorize execution of a contract
with the top ranked proposer, Allied.
\\MS 1 \MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary
of City Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 5 of 9
Conclusions
1. On April 18, the City received proposals from four different companies. Each
proposal packet was very thorough and represents a significant preparation effort.
2. The City Staff Team accepted all four proposals as being responsive and meeting the
minimum qualifications criteria as specified in the RFP.
3. All four proposals were for single stream recycling systems. No respondent proposed
on the two sort (i.e., dual stream) recycling system similar to the system the City
currently has in place.
4. On April 25, the City Staff Team met to discuss: first, the results of their individual
reviews; and then, second, Foth's economic analysis.
5. Numeric scoring and rankings of the proposals were developed by the City Staff
Team pursuant to the criteria specified in the RFP.
6. Under negotiations authorized by City Council on May 15, Allied submitted their
best and final offer.
7. The resulting revised ranking of the proposals, based on Allied's revised price, places
their proposal first overall and first under "economics".
\\MS 1\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary
of City Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 6 of 9
City of Edina — Recycling RFP Attachment 1
Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Excerpts from RFP
City of Edina - Recycling RFP:
Excerpts on Evaluation Criteria
The following are selected excerpts from the City of Edina Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Residential Curbside Recycling Services (March 20, 2012). Please see the full RFP
document for more details.)
17. Evaluation Criteria
The City will objectively evaluate the proposals submitted to determine the best value for the
City and its residents. Proposed alternate vs. dual -sort vs. single -sort proposals will be treated as
fairly and equitably as possible. Following are the evaluation criteria and relative point values
for each criterion:
17.1 Environmental
(40 points)
Includes a consideration of which proposals have the best relative environmental value to the
City and residents as determined by:
Which proposal allows residents to recycle the most materials (e.g., list of City
designated recyclables, recovery rates, participation rates, tons collected)?
• Which proposal generates the least amount of process residuals in the residential
recycling collection, i.e. waste? Based on this estimate, what is the net amount of tons
actually recycled to end markets?
Which proposal describes existing or planned use of alternative fuels such as compressed
natural gas (CNG) or biodiesel?
Which collection method emits the least pollution through equipment and routing?
What is the characterization of glass end markets to be utilized (e.g., percent by type of
end use application) compared to proposer's historic/existing end markets?
Which proposal and company has the best plans for reducing greenhouse gas (GHC)
emissions. (Evaluations will be based on information submitted within the written
proposals about plans to reduce GHC emissions due to proposed recycling operations
directly and indirectly related to the City of Edina curbside collection services. The City
will review GHC emission reductions plans within the following categories (in order of
priority relevance to the City of Edina):
Page 7 of 9
City of Edina — Recycling RFP Attachment 1
Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Excerpts from RFP
• On -route, curbside collection operations in the City of Edina.
• Recyclables materials processing operations (in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area).
• Materials transportation to market.
• End markets.
What innovations are proposed to increase recycling participation, or tonnages and
materials collected.
Which proposal shows the greatest amount of plastics marketed to domestic (U.S. and
Canada) end users
Which proposer provides a written track record of green or sustainable initiatives?
17.2 Economics
(40 points)
Includes consideration of which proposal has the highest net relative value to the City and to
residents as determined by (not in any special order):
The proposed price of the recycling collection service (e.g., dollars per household served
per month).
The proposed revenue credits returned to the City (as estimated by the actual dollar
amount of monthly and annual credits back to the City after processing fees.)
17.3 Education
(15 points)
Includes consideration of which proposal has the best relative value to the City and to residents
as determined by (not in any special order):
Innovations proposed to improve public education that will increase awareness about
recycling to all City residents.
Innovations proposed to improve public education that will increase the quantity (total
tonnage) and spectrum (variety of materials) of recyclable materials collected.
Innovations proposed to improve public education to improve the quality of the
recyclable materials collected.
\\MS I\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\luly 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary of City
Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 8 of 9
City of Edina — Recycling RFP Attachment 1
Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Excerpts from RFP
17.4 Qualifications
(5 points)
Includes consideration of which proposal has the best relative value to the City and to residents
as determined by (not in any special order):
How has the proposal been tailored to meet the particular needs of the City of Edina?
How will the Proposer calculate tonnage and quality of Edina recyclables as opposed to
other cities/commercial customers on the same truck on any given day? At the MRF for
the annual tonnage report?
How detailed, and with what frequency will set -out rates and participation be
documented, and materials composition be evaluated?
Is the MRF capable of all commodity separations and what plans are in place for
continued modernization of the facility?
What is the safety record of the proposer, on routes and at the MRF?
What is the strength of qualifications of the Proposer (together with any proposed
subcontractor(s)?
What comments were received from the Proposer's reference clients?
\\MS 1\MSprojects\IE\2012\12E005.00\10300 draft reports & docs\Proposal reviews + analysis\July 2012 Phase Two\M - Foth summary of City
Staff Team review 7-9-12.docx Page 9 of 9