David, You raise some good points but your information isn't complete. While our organization, Eureka Recycling, has only operated for two years, our key staff has operated recycling facilities for over a decade. For example, our facility manager operated WMI's recycling facility in Saint Paul for many years (was their regional safety manager over all MRFS) and before that she managed other facilities and operations. Another continued bit of misinformation is that we are not fully operational. We are currently handling the same amount, type and stream (source separated) material in our facility that Minneapolis generates. The material comes from a contract we have held for over 17 years in which we do both collection and processing.
In terms of the differences in how we handle materials, WMI has a single stream facility that handles materials mixed entirely together. When we looked at having WMI handle material from St Paul's program (before we decided to build our own facility) they stated to us that they were not able to keep the material separate. Now they are telling Minneapolis that they can. Who will watch to make sure? Single stream programs can lose up to 30% of the materials collected due to cross contamination and poor quality. These are legitimate staff and public policy concerns. Paper mills are increasingly worried and rejecting material from single stream facilities because it is littered with broken glass. And it is true that there is ample controversy over the bonding amount a recycler must post in case it can't perform. We can provide at least 1.3 million annually (Almost 4 million over the three year contract.) When we met with the city's financial advisors they said that the performance bond was an issue that they would negotiate after they selected a proposer. We welcome that and will provide the city with ample coverage. When you say that our chances are greater (though far from certain) we will non-perform, given our newness of operations and facility, I must disagree. Look at our organization's 17 year history of performance in Saint Paul versus the dozens of cases of WMI and BFI's lack of performance across the country and right here at home. In just one year of contracting with WMI for collection (when they bought the small independent recycler we were working with) WMI paid our organization approximately $16,000 in liquidated damages for failure to perform on our contract. They paid many tens of thousands more in the year before. We felt their performance was so poor we would not work with them anymore and launched our own fleet of trucks (which run on biodiesel) and this green fleet will proudly celebrate their first anniversary on Earth Day. There is a legitimate reason for Minneapolis staff to be prepared with a performance bond with WMI since they may need to be fully prepared to go to battle with WMI on performance. And about government grants....Eureka Recycling gets less that 3% of our funding from government grants. I can see where you would assume differently since most nonprofits do not earn their money through fees for services. But we are very different and join a rank of new nonprofits that know that government grants will not get you through hard times. Our Materials Recovery Facility in Minneapolis was built with no grants. The only government support we received was an "at market price/same as a bank" loan from the city of Saint Paul for $900,000 and an interest free loan from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance of $100,000 for an optical glass sorter. (This loan is available to for profit companies too.) This equipment assures that all glass get recycled into new glass bottles - unlike WMI who has already admitted that they use "glass from the suburbs" as landfill cover. The total cost for the facility is 3.5 million that we have traditionally financed (except the $100,000 as noted above.) In addition we pay living wages to all of Eureka Recycling's employees, we pay full benefits--both medical and dental--and we pay domestic partner coverage. Finally, there is every reason to believe that this contract, similar to the recycling collection contract will not come up for bid again- for a very long time. This processing contract was held by BFI and renewed without going out to bid for many, many years and the collection contract has been held without going to bid for even longer. It is true that it is not a black-and-white decision (green maybe), and demonizing and criminalizing staff or elected officials is not good for anyone - although I doubt that anyone's comments are really intended to do that. We do not want residents to become cynical of recycling or untrusting of their representatives in this process. We believe that we have already made WMI and BFI stand up and face the fact that the materials they collect are far more valuable than they have been telling (and paying) these local governments. This alone is a huge step in the accomplishment of our mission and toward more sustainable recycling. The next step is to allow a committed organization to make a good program -- better. Sincerely, Susan Hubbard CEO Eureka Recycling Susan Hubbard President/ Chief Executive Officer Eureka Recycling 624 Selby Ave. Saint Paul, MN 55104 651.222.7678 651.221.9831 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our WEBSITE! www.eurekarecycling.org Eureka Recycling is a nonprofit organization. Our mission is to reduce waste today through innovative resource management and to reach a waste-free tomorrow by demonstrating that waste is preventable not inevitable. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Brauer Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mpls] Great story by Doug Grow on the Mpls Recycling Contract Chris Johnson writes: > > I find it strange that the city council is being blamed for > "oversights" in the RFP. City council members are unlikely to spend > their time writing RFPs. That is city staff's job, and in this case, > I'm guessing that staff would be Susan Young and the people who report > to her. So in reality, Young is responsible for any failures in the > RFP to address all items which should have been addressed. That she > and her department keep recommending the worst of the three choices > makes it look like they are taking bribes, in my opinion. Please. If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you have to bring more evidence than your speculation. Criminalizing disagreement is flatly unfair. Having edited a couple of recycling-recommendation stories that have included copious criticism of Waste Management's corporate crimes, I don't necessarily disagree with Doug or Chris's choice of Eureka. However, I thought Doug's column glossed over a few things that didn't fit his David-versus-Goliath storyline. While the cash payment to the city is relatively equal, there are some legitimate disadvantages to Eureka's bid. The company has only operated its own recycling for two years, and their Minneapolis facility is not fully operational. Those are a legitimate staff and public policy concerns. There's ample controversy over the bonding amount a recycler most post in case it can't perform - Eureka says it can come up with one (I've heard a $1 million bond floated around), while the city wants a total of $6 million to cover possible costs of finding a new recycler during the contract and paying off subcontractors that a non-performing recycler might have used. Frankly, the chances are greater (though far from certain) that Eureka will non-perform, given their newness of operations and facility. Again, you can argue over how big a bond is needed, but there's a legit reason for staff to recommend the city's butt be fully covered (especially in tight financial times). Also, Eureka, unlike WMI and BFI, relies partly on government grants to fund operations. I applaud the government support to support the start-up of a greener recycler, but you know how reliable government grants are these days. It's legitimate to want Eureka to be able to fully pay operating costs with operating revenue. There's a very reasonable line of thinking that any doubts about Eureka will be cleared up by the next time the contract comes up. They will have 7, not 2 years of operations under their belt and their Minneapolis facility will have five, not zero years of operational history. One route I might suggest is shortening the term of this contract so we can switch more safely to Eureka sooner. Again, if policymakers decide Eureka's superior values are worth whatever the added operating risk might be, they should go for it. But it's NOT a black-and-white decision, and demonizing and criminalizing staff is certainly not the way to make quality public policy decisions in Minneapolis. PS The city council votes to issue RFPs. True, staff knows more and gets the ball rolling, but policymakers have a responsibility to ask good questions throughout the process. David Brauer Kingfield A guy who keeps the composting worms in his basement fed. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
