Laserfiche WebLink
263 <br />landfill. Member DeBenedet summarized that subcategory by stating that unless <br />264 <br />the materials were reused, you were not actually recycling anything. <br />265 <br />266 <br />Member DeBenedet opined that "multi- family service" should also be a <br />267 <br />requirement of the RFP with not assigned weighting. <br />268 <br />269 <br />Chair Vanderwall reiterated his emphasis on "ease of participation," "flexibility <br />270 <br />of co- mingling for residents," and "more materials picked up," along with <br />271 <br />"frequency of service." Chair Vanderwall opined that a more frequent pick -up <br />272 <br />and smaller bins would make it easier to get recycli to the curbside. Member <br />273 <br />Vanderwall suggested a vendor should be able t de proactive ways to make <br />274 <br />it easy for recycling. <br />275 <br />276 <br />Member Felice expressed her on -going confusion with what the PWETC had <br />277 <br />originally considered "co- mingling," questioning if co -min ing without <br />278 <br />separation that she took to mean single -sort, would as mu recycled. Member <br />279 <br />Felice put a high value on "materials are efficiently recycled. . s well as <br />280 <br />"impact on street..." and "frequency of service." Member Feli spoke in support <br />281 <br />of a once /week pick -up as being ideal from her perspective. Member Felice also <br />282 <br />supported "ease of participation." <br />283 <br />284 <br />Regarding the "co- mingling" aspect, Chair Vanderwall opined that it was <br />285 <br />addressing single sort; and questioned whether or not there was a higher <br />286 <br />percentage f drop -out because of co- mingling and people not using it; or vice <br />287 <br />versa; a e need to seek proof from various vendors of the most effective <br />288 <br />method. <br />SOLO, <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />