Laserfiche WebLink
265 <br />Mr. Schwartz concurred, expressing his personal opinion that this was not a <br />266 <br />Professional Services Contract. <br />267 <br />268 <br />Member DeBenedet expressed his continuing skepticism for the single sort <br />269 <br />collection, and smaller versus larger carts; questioning the most viable option and <br />270 <br />frequency of collection. <br />271 <br />272 <br />Mr. Pratt clarified that, as documented in Section 5.01 and meeting minutes of the <br />273 <br />April 2013 PWETC meeting when Chair Vanderwall opined that every other <br />274 <br />week collection would be a step backward for the City of Roseville, the weekly <br />275 <br />collection remained a specified requirement. However, Mr. Pratt noted that most <br />276 <br />vendors with single stream collection only did a bi- weekly collection; and <br />277 <br />therefore that option was also included in the general requirements. <br />278 <br />279 <br />280 <br />281 <br />282 <br />283 <br />284 <br />285 <br />286 <br />287 <br />288 <br />289 <br />290 <br />291 <br />292 <br />293 <br />294 <br />295 <br />296 <br />297 <br />298 <br />299 <br />300 <br />301 <br />302 <br />303 <br />304 <br />305 <br />306 <br />307 <br />308 <br />309 <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that this then became,part of the overall scoring issue. <br />In terms of truck weight, Mr. Schwartz advised that he had spoken to a truck <br />vendor that specifically built recycling vehicles, and in terms of weight (Section <br />5.02), that conversation provided the rationale for the 40,000 pound maximum <br />loaded weight requirement. Mr. Pratt suggested that weight restriction may be <br />based on rear axle weights from past truck specifications. Mr. Schwartz advised <br />that for single- stream mechanical equipment with packer elements on the truck, <br />they were typically constructed on tandem axle trucks; and questioned if that was <br />a compliance issue with the State of the PWETC's preference for weight. <br />Vice Chair Stenlund opined that it was very important to him to reduce the truck <br />weight as m h as possible; expressing his personal frustration with road wear <br />from trucks skidding to stops and /or overloading. Vice Chair Stenlund opined <br />that he preferred light loads relative to heavy loads. <br />egarding the contractor selection process and schedule outlined in Section 2 <br />2 e 5), Member DeBenedet questioned if it was feasible to get the RFP out by <br />2013. <br />Mr. Pratt responded that it was a preliminary timeframe provided at the request of <br />Mr. Schwartz as an example; however, he noted that nothing was scheduled at <br />this point given the number of unknowns and lack of approvals. Mr. Schwartz <br />noted that the concern was, if this goes to single sort with a new cart roll -out, etc., <br />it would take three (3) months from contract finalization to cart delivery, so the <br />process needed to continue moving forward without delay. While Member <br />DeBenedet suggested there may be a one -month allowance on the schedule <br />example, Mr. Schwartz noted that the current contract expires December 31, <br />2013. Vice Chair Stenlund also noted that it may not be good to start a new <br />program with wheeled carts during the winter months. <br />Page 7 of 15 <br />