03-11-08
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
March 11, 2008
6:30 pm
1. Janalyn Circle Pond Natural Area Maintenance
2. North Suburban Emergency Management Group Operations Plan
3. Water Meter Battery Change Out Program
4. Recycling Contract Extension
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
in alternate formats
to make a
Braille, au
call
rmats
Hey
M mora um
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
March 11, 2008
Agenda Item
1. Janalyn Circle Pond Natural Area Maintenance
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
City staff has received a request from the resident at 216 Janalyn Circle to remove dead
trees and stumps from the city owned natural areas surrounding Janalyn Circle Pond.
Janalyn Circle Pond is a landlocked public pond that receives storm water from the
surrounding neighborhood. The wooded area around the pond is not an active
recreation area and is considered a natural area that receives minimum maintenance.
Staff has inspected the area around the pond and the results are as follows:
1. Currently there are no diseased elms or oak trees present on the site,
2. There is one significant leaning dead tree on the southwest corner of the
property. This tree is not above the street or any trail system,
3. A few dead trees and several other dead logs, stumps and tree debris are within
the publicly owned wooded area, and
4. The estimated cost to remove the significant dead trees (standing and lying near
the ground), stumps and other deadwood is $2,900.
Current Tree Maintenance Policy in Natural Areas
City property is managed by Public Works Maintenance staff at different levels
depending on the use of the property. Tree removal is generally associated with
diseased elm and oaks or hazardous trees. Hazardous trees are defined by their
location and whether or not they have a potential target when they fall.
Dead trees in natural wooded areas are typically not considered hazardous. There are
approximately 225 acres of natural areas within the City of Golden Valley with varying
degrees of tree health. Natural areas in Golden Valley range from designated nature
areas to city owned outlots. Hazardous trees or dead trees are typically only evaluated
when they are located above trail systems, roadways or other potential targets within
these areas. Staff will continue to re-inspect for diseased trees in this area this summer.
Dead trees within wooded areas are generally considered part of the natural
environment. Dead trees and other plants provide habitat for animals and are part of the
natural ecosystem that recycles nutrients back into the soils when they decay.
Natural Resource Management Plan
A city wide Natural Resource Inventory was completed in 2003. Funding was approved
for 2008 to complete a Natural Resource Management Plan. Staff recommends utilizing
the management plan process to formalize the practices of the Public Works
Maintenance staff for natural wooded areas and city owned outlots.
Attachments
Area Map for Janalyn Circle Pond (1 page)
Photos ( 1 page)
8
4240
j
4260
4250
/~
L_~
4270
4300
GLENWOOD AVE
4333 4313 4309 4301 4253
4263
4115 16
4243
r:
224 . '\
)
. 28 100
I~ 208 204 0
1<-, 216 212
1
JANAL YN CI (/)
0
't <(
"l" 28
'" 28
~ 225 ..J
0
221 217 213 209 205
- ~,
U -- 208
301 0
Z
~ 4316 310 C
4308 <(0
4300 4224 4212 4116 4108
<( 4100 W,
Z GLENCREST RD :aEi
<(
.., 4301
4223 4211 4201 4115 4101
Print Date: 3/5/08 N
Janalyn Circle Sources: A
Hennepin County Surveyors Office for
Property Lines (2008).
Pond Markhurd for 2-Foot Contours (1999).
0 70 140 280
Feet
I
,1
Public ~U~Y
M 0 n urn
Fire Department
763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
March 11, 2008
Agenda Item
2. North Suburban Emergency Management Group Operations Plan
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
The North Suburban Emergency Management Region is comprised of thirteen (13)
contiguous cities, one (1) urban township and one (1) non-contiguous jurisdiction. Staff from
the North Suburban Emergency Management Region recently completed revising the
Emergency Operations Plan to provide a solid basis for response and recovery. The North
Suburban Emergency Operations Plan establishes a framework through which the member
cities may prepare for, respond to, recover from and mitigate the impact of a wide variety of
disasters and emergency events that could adversely affect the health, safety and general
welfare of member cities.
Attachment
North Suburban Emergency Management Group Emergency Operations Plan (15 pages)
NORTH SUBURBAN EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT GROUP
EMERGENCY OPERA TIONS PLAN
Preparedness
Response
Recovery
Mitigation
Background
· Emergency Management Responsibilities
- All hazard plan
- Training
- Exercising
· North Suburban Planning Group
- Meeting for at least 10 years
- Have combined Training & Exercises
North Suburban Emergency Management
Planning Region
Common Emergency Plan for 14 North Suburban Regional Governments
Brooklyn Center New Hope
Brooklyn Park Osseo
Champlin Plymouth
Crystal Robbinsdale
Dayton Rogers
Golden Valley One non-contiguoius
Maple Grove jurisdiction:
Medicine lake City of St. Anthony
Supporting Agencies:
Hennepin County Sheriffs Office
Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness
North Suburban Emergency
Operations Plan
· Reason for Combined Emergency
Operations Plan
- Homeland Security Presidential Directive - 5
)) The objective of the United States
Government is to ensure that all levels of
government across the Nation have the
capability to work efficiently and
effectively together, using a national
approach to domestic incident
management.
ADVANTAGES OF COMBINED
PLAN
· All cities are required to have Emergency
Operations Plan
· All Emergency Operations Plans have to meet
the same criteria
· Having one Emergency Operations Plan for
group would enhance response between
members
· Updating the Emergency Operations Plan to
meet federal requirements would be more
efficient
Ma'lor Responsibilities
Preparedness:
- Appoints local Emergency Management Director.
- Works with the Council to enact ordinances to deal with
.
emergencies.
- Establish formalline-of-succession for Mayoral authority.
- Reviews Emergency Plan.
- Participates in emergency exercises.
· Response:
- Declare local emergencies. Only the Mayor, or the legal successor,
may declare a local emergency.
- An emergency declared by the Mayor may remain in effect for up to
three days.
- A Council resolution is required to extend the declaration.
Council Responsibilities
Preparedness:
- Enact ordinances to deal with emergencies
- Review the North Suburban Emergency Plan
- Participate in emergency exercises
Response:
- The primary role of the Council is to enact emergency
regulations that assist in response and recovery.
-If necessary, pass a resolution extending the Mayor's
Emergency Declaration beyond three days.
Emergency Management
Declared Emergency - Flow Chart
MAYOR
FOR THREE DAYS
MAYOR
COUNCIL
AFTER THREE DAYS
Coordinator of
Director of Emergency Emergency
Management - Management
Police Administration &
Finance
Fire Public Works
Health Building Inspector
Engineering
Emergency Operations Plan
The North Suburban Emergency Operation Plan is written to
provide the region a common plan
The Emergency Operations Plan
and Basic Annex Sections
EOP - Main Sections
· Region and General Description, Reason and
purpose of the plan
· Legal basis and requirements
- References laws (Ordinances, Statutes and
Federal Acts) that require and aid emergency
planning, response, recovery and mitigation.
· Direction and Control
- Local responsibilities
- Regional responsibilities
EOP (Continued)
· Operational Policies
- General guide for emergency response
· Support
- State National Guard is available when a
natural disaster or major emergency is
beyond the capability of local government.
The Guard will support -- not substitute --
local resources.
- Federal and State Agencies available to assist
with particular emergencies.
EOP - Annexes
Annex A Warning & Notification
- Assigns responsibilities for a system of warnings,
including tornado sirens and media. Technology is
making this a rapidly changing subject.
Annex B Direction & Control
- Details management of emergency response.
- Standard response model: National Incident
Management System (NIMS).
- Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activation,
staffing, equipment and supplies.
Annex C
Crisis Communication
Annexes - (Continued)
Annex D Search & Rescue
Annex E Health & Medical
Annex F Security, Evacuation and Traffic Control
Annex G Fire Protection
- References mutual aid agreements, hazardous
materials response, hazardous materials facility plans,
training records, fire command & control, EMS, and
search & rescue.
Annex H Damage Assessment
Annex I Congregate Care
- Emergency housing, feeding, clothing and counseling
Annexes (Continued)
Annex J Debris Clearance/Public Works
- Fire trucks, police cars and ambulances can't drive on
roads filled with trees
Annex K Utilities Restoration
- Public Works for water & sewer
Annex L Radiological & Haz-Mat Protection
- Fire mutual aid pact.
- Minnesota Chemical Assessment Team.
Annexes (Continued)
Annex M Domestic and Exotic Animals
- Evacuation, rescue, transport, sheltering and
disposal of pets, livestock and exotic animals during
and after a disaster
Annex N Terrorism
- Guidelines for coordinating emergency operations in
the event of a terrorist attack
Annex 0 Volunteer/Donations
- Guideline for coordinating donations of unsolicited
goods and services in the event of a major
emergency or disaster
alley
Mem randum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
March 11, 2008
Agenda Item
3. Water Meter Battery Change Out Program
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor
Summary
In 2004, the City of Golden Valley completed the replacement of its commercial and
residential water meters. Each water meter is equipped with a radio read system which relies
on a battery to power the radio transmitter. This transmitter sends data which is collected by
maintenance staff so that water consumption can be determined.
Staff is planning to begin replacing the batteries on the meters based on the date of the
installation of the meter. The commercial meters are read on a monthly basis and were some
of the first meters installed and therefore staff will begin the battery change out program on
commercial water meters first. The next phase, beginning in the fall of 2008, will be to begin
residential water meter battery replacement in the neighborhood known as the Manor area in
the northeast corner of the City, which was the first residential area to receive the upgrade to
radio read meters. Staff will continue to replace batteries in residential water meters based on
the date of installation moving from oldest meters to newest meters.
It is the intention of staff to accomplish this task with existing personnel, completing ten to
twenty replacements per week if the customer cooperates. The battery replacement process
will not interrupt water service to commercial or residential customers and should only take
approximately 20 minutes to complete per meter. Staff has created notification letters to be
mailed to residential customers requesting the customer call for an appointment.
Attachments
Residential letter #1 (1 page)
Residential letter #2 (1 page)
LETTER #1
Date
Resident
<<Address>>
<<City>> <<ST>> <<Zip>>
Subject: Replacement of Water Meter Transponder Battery - <<Address>>
Dear Sir or Madam:
Approximately eight years ago, the City of Golden Valley replaced old water meters with
new meters that have transponders which allow the meter to be read by radio
transmission directly from the street. It is time to replace the battery in the transponder.
At this time, the City is scheduling appointments with homeowners to install a new water
meter transponder battery in residences. There is no charge for this installation. Public
Works Maintenance employees will be installing the meters between 7 am and 3 pm,
Mondays through Fridays. Installation should take approximately 20 minutes and there
will be no disruption to water service.
We request that you call 763.593.3962, no later than (2 weeks from date of letter), to
schedule a battery replacement appointment. This phone is equipped with voice mail so
please leave a message, including a daytime telephone number and the best time to get
in touch with you, if your call is not answered.
Thank you for your cooperation!
Sincerely,
Dave Lemke
Utilities Maintenance Supervisor
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
LETTER #2
Date
Resident
<<Address>>
<<City>> <<ST>> <<Zip>>
Dear Sir or Madam:
On (date of first letter), the City of Golden Valley sent a letter notifying you that it is time
to change the transponder battery in the water meter used in your home. We asked that
homeowners call and schedule an appointment so this replacement could be done.
We would like to have the battery change out completed by (2 weeks from date of letter)
in your area. All appointments will be scheduled on a first come, first serve basis
between 7 am and 3 pm, Mondays through Fridays, so please call as soon as possible.
The replacement should only take approximately 20 minutes and there will be disruption
to water service.
We request that you call 763.593.3962 no later than (2 weeks from date of letter), to
schedule a battery replacement appointment. This phone is equipped with voice mail so
please leave a message, including a daytime telephone number and the best time to get
in touch with you, if your call is not answered. Your cooperation with this project is very
much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Dave Lemke
Utilities Maintenance Supervisor
C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
alley
Memorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
March 11, 2008
Agenda Item
4. Discussion Regarding Extension of Recycling Contract
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
In cooperation with the cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth, staff has been evaluating options
to provide recycling services to residential customers. After considerable study, staff is
recommending that the existing contract with Waste Management be extended by three
years, with an option for an additional three years.
The proposal from Waste Management would increase the hauling and the processing fee by
a percentage equal to the CPI and capped at 3% per year. However, the revenue sharing
formula would change.
Currently, the three communities receive 100% of the profits derived from the recycled
materials marketed. The proposal from Waste Management is to reduce that amount to 80%
in 2009, and further reduce it by 2% per year for each year of the contract. If the three
communities entered into a second extension, the average revenue sharing amount would be
approximately 75% to each city, averaged over five years, assuming that the values of the
materials and the amount of recycling occurring in each community held constant.
While this results in an overall reduction in the amount of revenue sharing realized to Golden
Valley ($54,000 in year one), with a continued reduction in revenue sharing as the contract
progresses (reference page 8 of Krivit memo), it is important to evaluate the competitiveness
of this proposal against that of others currently being realized by other cities. Even with the
reduction of the revenue sharing, the City of Golden Valley anticipates receiving $143,000 in
2009. Staff believes that the three communities are at the high end of revenue sharing and
knows of no other cities that are receiving 75% in revenue sharing. This information will be
confirmed by our consultant and this data will be shared with Council at the meeting. The
revenue sharing has an overall impact on the rate to the resident and assists the City with
programs such as fall leaf drop-off, spring brush pick-up and administrative costs associated
with Mighty Tidy Day.
Waste Management has indicated that it could not better its recycling contract proposal if it
competed in a Request for Proposal process. Staff believes that there are administrative cost
savings associated with continuing with the existing contractor and not changing vendors at
this time.
Attachments
Letter to Jeannine Clancy, Brian Wagstrom and Doran Cote dated March 3, 2008 (2 pages)
Memo to Three City Group Review Team dated March 3, 2008 (11 pages)
WASTE MANAGEMENT
March 3, 2008
Jeannine Clancy
Director of Public Works
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Brian Wagstrom
Director
City ofMinnetonka
11522 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Doran Cote
Director of Public Works
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: Recycle Contract with Cities of Golden Valley, Minnetonka and Plymouth
Dear Ms. Clancy, Mr. Wagstrom, and Mr. Cote:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us as a follow-up to Waste Management's
proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the Cities of Golden
Valley, Minnetonka, and Plymouth.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide a proposal to the Cities. Weare confident that
the service we have provided has met your expectations.
We understand that you need to quickly make a decision on the future of your program.
Effective January I, 2009 Waste Management proposes the following services to you.
As discussed we respectfully request a 3-year term with a possible 3-year extension.
Curbside recycling service to all single-family households in the Cities of Golden Valley,
Minnetonka, and Plymouth:
Hauling - $2.73 per household per month
Processing Fee - $51.09 per ton
Revenue Sharing - 80 percent to the City: 20 percent to Waste Management
The Hauling and Processing Fee would be adjusted by a percentage equal to the CPI-U
Midwest All Items on January 1~ There would be a cap in the adjustment of3 percent.
The Revenue Sharing would adjust by 2 percent each year. For example in year 2 the
Cities' percentage would change to 78 percent. In year 3 the Cities' percentage would
adjust to 76 percent.
Drop off recycling center service for the Cities ofMinnetonka and Plymouth
Containers and Servicing of Drop off Centers - $2,500 per month for each City
Processing Fee - $51.09 per ton
Revenue Sharing - 80 percent to the City: 20 percent to Waste Management
The Containers and servicing Fee and Processing Fee would be adjusted by a percentage
equal to the CPI-U Midwest All Items on January 1. There would be a cap in the
adjustment of3 percent. The Revenue Sharing would adjust by 2 percent each year. For
example in year 2 the Cities' percentage would change to 78 percent. In year 3 the
Cities' percentage would adjust to 76 percent.
We feel that this rate is extremely competitive and takes into account the changes in costs
in the last 3 years.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding our proposal at
(763) 783-5429 or iklenner@wm.com. We look forward to visiting with you about our
offer. We appreciate your business and look forward to working with you long into the
future.
Sincerely,
Jennefer Klennert
Municipal Marketing Manager
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Memo
Date:
March 3, 2008
To:
From:
Subject:
Three City Group Review Team
Dan Krivit, Dan Krivit and Associates (DKA)
REVISED Analysis of Waste Management (WM) Proposal
This memo contains an economic analysis of Waste Management's (WM's) recent REVISED
proposal as a result of the negotiation session held on Thursday, February 28. The terms of the
revised proposal are contained in a brief letter from Jennefer K.lennert (WM Municipal
Marketing Manager) to each of the three Cities' Directors of Public Works Departments dated
March 3, 2008. The primary change from the original, earlier proposal is a REVISED 80%
revenue share to the Cities (20% to WM) for the first year of the new contract extension (2009).
Thereafter, there would be a 2% point increase in the WM revenue share each year (e.g., 22%
WM /78% Cities for year 2010; 24% WM / 76% Cities for year 2011; and so on).
Other than this new revenue share schedule, the other proposed terms within the this REVISED
WM proposal are assumed to be the same as the original WM proposal dated February 15, 2008
submitted to the three City group c/o Jeannine Clancy (public Works Director to Golden Valley)
from Jennefer K.lennert (WM).
Table 1 displays the REVISED proposal from WM compared to prices in 2007.
The existing contract terms and current recycling system performance variables were used to
compare against the WM proposal. In the tables below, estimated costs under the current contract
for 2008 were used as the "baseline" for comparison. Thus, the "Current Contract for 2008"
(Note (a) in Table 2, page 2), used the following assumptions:
. 2007 pounds per household per year was held constant
. 2007 materials values were held constant
. January 2008 CDU (household) counts
The WM proposal was projected out under the "as is" (with the REVISED revenue sharing
schedule) through 2014 using:
. 80% revenue share to the Cities starting in 2009
· 2% point drop each year thereafter in the Cities' revenue share split
· "Worst case" of3% CPI adjustment each year for curbside hauling fee, drop-off
containers service fee and processing fee.
Prepared by DKA
Page 1 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Table 1
WM REVISED Pro osal Elements Com ared to 2008 Prices
Existing
WM Contract %
Proposal for 2008 Increa:
Curbside "Hauling" fee $2.73 $2.65 per household per month 3.0%:
Annual CPI adjuster 3% n.a. increase per year 3.0%:
Drop-Off Service Fee $2,500 $2,300 per month for each City 8.7OIc
Proc Fee $51 .09 $49.60 per ton (curbside and drop-off) 3.0o/c
2009 Rev Share 80% to the City -20.0~
20% toWM 20.0~
Rev share de-escalator 2% points decrease per year rev share to cities
2010 Rev Share 78% to the City -22.0~
2011 Rev Share 76% to the City -24.0~
2012 Rev Share 74% to the City -26.0~
2013 Rev Share 72% to the City -28.0~
2014 Rev Share 70% to the City -30.0~
Table 2 (page 2) displays a comparison of the current contract costs for 2008 vs. the annual
average cost of the WM ("as is" proposal as projected over the six years of 2009 through 2014.
(Table 2 is a summary of the detailed analysis by City as shown in Tables 7,8,9 and 10 at the
end of this memo.)
Table 2 SUMMARY:
WM Proposal "REVISED" * Annual Average Cost
Compared to 2008 Prices
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 sl year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
3% CPI annual adjustment, as per WM Proposal)
(Annual Average
Current Contract over
City for 2008 la) 6 years: 2009 - Difference
Minnetonka $7,000 $233,000 $226,000
Plymouth $98,000 $373,000 $275,000
Golden Valley $54,000 $140,000 $86,000
TOTAL $159,000 $746,000 $587,000
Prepared by DKA
Page 2 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Each City and then the Grand Total for all three Cities were also analyzed. Historical costs and
revenues of the WM recycling contract each City were compared to the projected costs of the Feb
15th WM proposal "as is" without any modifications:
Table 3 (page 4) and Figure 1 (page 5) displays the historical and projected future costs
and revenues of for the City of Minnetonka.
Table 4 (page 6) and Figure 2 (page 7) displays the historical and projected future costs
and revenues for the City of Plymouth.
Table 5 (page 8) and Figure 3 (page 9) displays the historical. and projected future costs
and revenues for the City of Golden Valley.
Table 6 (page 10) and Figure 4 (page 11) displays the historical and projected future costs
and revenues for the grand total of all three Cities.
Table Foot Notes:
(c) "Drop-Off Rate" = Current contract drop-off service price or WM proposed ("as is") container service fee
with 3% annual CPI adjustment applied to future years beyond 2009.
(e) Estimates of current contract costs for 2008 using current terms of existing WM agreement: January 2008
CDU counts, 2007 pounds per household recovery rate, 2007 material value.
"Rebate Total" = Net revenue share ("Rebate") after subtracting total processing fees from gross total material
sales.
"Total Net Cost" = Total gross costs of collection (curbside + drop-off service fees) less total rebates.
Prepared by DKA
Page 3 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Table 3
City of Minnetonka Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to New WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
Curb-
Side Pro- Curbside
House- Drop- Off cessing Rebate Colin Haul TOTAL NET
Year hold Rate Rate (c) Fee Total Cost COST
2003 $2.29 $2,100 $46.00 $279,000 $444,000 ($190,000)
2004 $2.36 $2,100 $46.00 $407,000 $459,000 ($77,000)
2005 $2.43 $2,100 $46.00 $432,000 $473,000 ($66,000)
2006 $2.50 $2,300 $49.60 $459,000 $488,000 ($57,000)
2007 $2.57 $2,300 $49.60 $539,000 $502,000 $9,000
2008 (e) $2.65 $2,300 $49.60 $539,000 $518,000 ($7,000)
2009 WM Prop $2.73 $2,500 $51.09 $418,000 $533,000 ($145,000)
2010 WM Prop $2.81 $2,575 $52.62 $401,000 $549,000 ($179,000)
2011 WM Prop $2.90 $2,652 $54.20 $383,000 $566,000 ($215,000)
2012 WM Prop $2.98 $2,732 $55.83 $366,000 $583,000 ($250,000)
2013 WM Prop $3.07 $2,814 $57.50 $349,000 $600,000 ($285,000)
2014 WM Prop $3.16 $2,898 $59.23 $332,000 $618,000 ($321,000)
6-Year Average
WM Proposal ($233,000)
Difference vs.
Current 2008 ($226,000)
Prepared by DKA
Page 4 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Figure 1
City of Minnetonka Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 15t year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
....
Itl
~ $200,000
....
Q)
a.
V). $100,000
$0
($lOO,OOO)
($200,OOO)
($300,OOO)
r
2007 2008
(e)
. Rebate Total
I Curbside Colin Haul Cost
. TOTAL NET COST
20
W
Pr
--- -.-..---..- - - --_....- ...------ ----..---.. ---- --.--- ------- - --- - -~_._----_.__. ---------._----- -.---.---.--.-.-----.-- .------
Prepared by DKA
Page 5 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Table 4
City of Plymouth Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to New WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
Curb-
Side
House- Pro.
hold Drop- Off cessing Curbside Colin TOTAL NET
Year Rate Rate (c) Fee Rebate Total Haul Cost COST
2004 $2.36 $2,100 $46.00 $503,000 $616,000 ($138,000)
2005 $2.43 $2,100 $46.00 $560,000 $633,000 ($98,000)
2006 $2.50 $2,300 $49.60 $557,000 $660,000 ($131,000)
2007 $2.58 $2,300 $49.60 $639,000 $688,000 ($77,000)
2008 (e) $2.65 $2,300 $49.60 $646,000 $716,000 ($98,000)
2009 WM Prop $2.73 $2,500 $51.09 $508,000 $737,000 ($259,000)
2010 WM Prop $2.81 $2,575 $52.62 $487,000 $760,000 ($304,000)
2011 WM Prop $2.90 $2,652 $54.20 $465,000 $782,000 ($349,000)
2012 WM Prop $2.98 $2,732 $55.83 $444,000 $806,000 ($395,000)
2013 WM Prop $3.07 $2,814 $57.50 $423,000 $830,000 ($441,000)
2014 WM Prop $3.16 $2,898 $59.23 $403,000 $855,000 ($487,000)
6-Year Average
WM Proposal ($373,000)
Difference vs.
Current 2008 ($275,000)
Prepared by DKA
Page 6 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Figure 2
City of Plymouth Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables of cnu counts and tons)
$900,000
$700,000
$500,000
$300,000
....
ro
~
....
Q)
a.
oV). $100,000
($100,000)
($300,000)
($500,000)
r
r
20
W
Pr
20
W
Pr
20
. Rebate Total
I Curbside Colin Haul Cost
. TOTAL NET COST
Prepared by DKA
Page 7 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Table 5
City of Golden Valley Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to New WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
Curb-
Side
House- Pro- Curbside
hold Drop- Off cessing Colin Haul TOTAL NET
Year Rate Rate (e) Fee Rebate Total Cost COST
2003 $2.29 $2,100 $46.00 $100,000 $189,000 ($114,000)
2004 $2.36 $2,100 $46.00 $154,000 $194,000 ($65,000)
2005 $2.43 $2,100 $46.00 $161,000 $200,000 ($64,000)
2006 $2.50 $2,300 $49.60 $167,000 $206,000 ($67,000)
2007 $2.57 $2,300 $49.60 $193,000 $212,000 ($47,000)
2008 (e) $2.65 $2,300 $49.60 $194,000 $220,000 ($54,000)
2009 WM Prop $2.73 $2,500 $51.09 $152,000 $226,000 ($104,000)
2010 WM Prop $2.81 $2,575 $52.62 $146,000 $233,000 ($118,000)
2011 WM Prop $2.90 $2,652 $54.20 $140,000 $240,000 ($132,000)
2012 WM Prop $2.98 $2,732 $55.83 $133,000 $247,000 ($147,000)
2013 WM Prop $3.07 $2,814 $57.50 $127,000 $255,000 ($162,000)
2014 WM Prop $3.16 $2,898 $59.23 $121,000 $262,000 ($176,000)
6-Year Average
WM Proposal ($140,000)
Difference vs.
Current 2008 ($86,000)
Prepared by DKA
Page 8 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Figure 3
City of Golden Valley Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
....
en
~ $50,000
....
CIJ
Co
"\Jl.
$0
($50,000)
($100,000)
($150,000)
($200,000)
.
.
. I , I r
l
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . I'"
20( 20( 20( 20( 20( 20( 20( 20 20 20 20 20
. (e WI WI WI WI WI WI
Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre
. . Rebate Total
I Curbside Colin Haul Cost
. TOTAL NET COST
Prepared by DKA
Page 9 of 11
Minnetonka I Plymouth I Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Table 6
GRAND TOTAL of All Three Cities' Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to New WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
Curb-
Side
House- Pro- Curbside
hold Drop- Off cessing Colin Haul TOTAL NET
Year Rate Rate (c) Fee Rebate Total Cost COST
2003 $2.29 $2,100 $46.00 $374,889 $633,029 ($283,341 )
2004 $2.36 $2,100 $46.00 $1,057,000 $1,270,000 ($238,000)
2005 $2.43 $2,100 $46.00 $1,146,000 $1,307,000 ($186,000)
2006 $2.50 $2,300 $49.60 $1,180,000 $1,354,000 ($202,000)
2007 $2.57 $2,300 $49.60 $1,363,000 $1,399,000 ($64,000)
2008 (e) $2.65 $2,300 $49.60 $1,372,000 $1,453,000 ($109,000)
2009 WM Prop $2.73 $2,500 $51.09 $1,079,000 $1,497,000 ($448,000)
2010 WM Prop $2.81 $2,575 $52.62 $1,034,000 $1,542,000 ($539,000)
2011 WM Prop $2.90 $2,652 $54.20 $989,000 $1,588,000 ($631,000)
2012 WM Prop $2.98 $2,732 $55.83 $944,000 $1,636,000 ($725,000)
2013 WM Prop $3.07 $2,814 $57.50 $900,000 $1,685,000 ($819,000)
2014 WM Prop $3.16 $2,898 $59.23 $856,000 $1,735,000 ($914,000)
6-Year Average
WM Proposal ($679,000)
Difference vs.
Current 2008 ($570,000)
Prepared by DKA
Page 10 of 11
Minnetonka / Plymouth / Golden Valley:
Contracting for New Recycling Collection Services
REVISED as of 3-3-2008
Figure 4
GRAND TOTAL of All Three Cities' Historical Costs and Revenues
Compared to WM Proposal "REVISED" *
(* With 80% Revenue Share to the Cities in the 1 st year and 2% points drop each year thereafter,
2008 variables ofCDU counts and tons)
$1,650,000
$1,150,000
r
.... $650,000
III
~
....
Q)
C.
-vi-
$150,000
20 20 20 20
W W W
($350,000) Pr Pr Pr
. Rebate Total
I Curbside Colin Haul Cost
($850,000) . TOTAL NET COST
Prepared by DKA
Page 11 of 11