Laserfiche WebLink
nationwide vendors and smaller, independent vendors in meeting prices; <br /> percentages of market share; efficiencies for haulers operating on fewer streets; <br /> how much latitude was available in bidding documents based on the expertise of <br /> legal and engineering consultants; and the preference for the City to outline its <br /> needs and preferences with vendors then responding to if and how they could <br /> comply. <br /> Additional discussion included market share of current vendors, whether currently <br /> accurate or needing updating and verification (page 76 of PDF materials); and <br /> requirements of vendors if they want to be included in the bidding group to <br /> provide accurate market share data (e.g. number of households serviced), and if <br /> that information is not provided, the City would not preserve a percentage of <br /> market share for that vendor. <br /> Other criteria included type of fuel used by individual vendors; mandatory criteria <br /> versus preferences. <br /> Member Stenlund spoke in support of moving forward with the process; however, <br /> he questioned the perception of Roseville residents in the role of government, <br /> opining that unless they supported the City becoming involved in this or the <br /> majority of the public was neutral, it was a waste of time to proceed. <br /> Member Gjerdingen noted, in the existing system, there was no way to ask <br /> haulers or provide an option to dictate the destination of trash. While <br /> acknowledging the goal of reducing wear and tear on Roseville streets, Member <br /> Gjerdingen noted that the number one goal of the process was to meet state and <br /> city mandates, standards and goals to reduce waste; and noted there was in ore <br /> trash now than in 2002; and use of the Newport facility was an efficient way to <br /> provide a strong incentive for getting rid of garbage. <br /> Member Felice noted that initial perceptions with the Maplewood presentation <br /> that she had attended were of unrest; however, when the factual information on <br /> costs and benefits were provided, there was more support. Member Felice opined <br /> that the City of Roseville was most likely in a similar position with viewpoints, <br /> including that of municipal government and their involvement, even though the <br /> same services would be provided. <br /> Member Stenlund noted the number of considerations to be addressed; however, <br /> he observed that the current system provided no way to improve trash collection <br /> services beyond being selectively complaint-driven. <br /> Member Felice suggested that there may be initial concerns from the public, <br /> however, once they understand that a process was built into the contract to <br /> address problems and complaints with varying consequences based on the <br /> frequency and type of complaint, they would recognize a more consistent recourse <br /> was then available for them. <br /> Page 8 of 17 <br />