My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0822
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0822
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:41 AM
Creation date
9/13/2005 11:14:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Rules/Appointments
Meeting Date
8/22/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 08/22/05 <br />Minutes - Page 35 <br /> <br />Jennefer Klennert, Public Sector Manager, Waste <br />Management <br />Ms. Klennert provided a written statement from Waste <br />Management dated August 22, 2005, outlining the firm's <br />concerns that they may be unable to meet the specifications of <br />the draft RFP. Ms. Klennert requested Council reconsideration <br />of their proposed RFP. <br /> <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn made suggestions to various sections ofthe draft <br />RFP. Council took note of the comment regarding Section 5.07, <br />with staff determining that there was a typographical error in the <br />last line of the section, and it should be "4.03," rather than <br />"4.02." <br /> <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn took issue with the City requesting free <br />recycling services, opining that it was not correct budgeting <br />practice nor did it allow proper accountability of various <br />departments, particularly the golf course since it operated as an <br />Enterprise Fund. <br /> <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn noted the cost of the RFP process; and opined <br />the length of the meeting was indicative of poor agenda <br />management. <br /> <br />Additional Council discussion included provisions of page 44, <br />Section 10.06, Curbside Dual Stream Bi-Weekly Collection <br />Proposal Scenario; including, revenue sharing and lower costs <br />with Councilmember Ihlan suggesting language rephrasing to <br />provide for information on how processing is accomplished, <br />without detailed processing information and residual rates, in an <br />effort not to arbitrarily rule people out while still allowing the <br />Council to compare different packages. Councilmember <br />Schroeder concurred. <br /> <br />Staff was directed to make the recommended revisions before <br />issuing the RFP and that staff provide a revised RFP to <br />Councilmembers. <br /> <br />No formal action taken. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.