My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-03-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-03-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2013 12:04:28 PM
Creation date
6/27/2013 12:04:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/26/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Member DeBenedet opined that the more evaluation categories there were, the <br /> more muddled evaluation because, making it necessary to determine the initial <br /> RFP submission and determining compliance, and whether or not the goals were <br /> achieved or that the City got the results they expected. Member DeBenedet asked <br /> if there were items that could be included in the RFP as mandatory, or not in the <br /> selection process, but simply a given. <br /> Chair Vanderwall cautioned that if things were not included, the City may not get <br /> what it wants, and that by including them it emphasized their importance. Chair <br /> Vanderwall noted the need to ensure that Roseville participation remained high or <br /> increased and didn't diminish as some communities experienced. Chair <br /> Vanderwall, regarding "electronic communication," noted that this could also <br /> include the PWETC's desire to encourage information delivered by a means other <br /> than paper. <br /> Member Felice suggested incorporating "electronic communications" with <br /> "effective education of residents," whether providing the City with information <br /> for the website or other items. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that"electronic communications" was part of <br /> "residential education" from his perspective. <br /> Chair Vanderwall opined that he was not yet ready to eliminate "electronic <br /> communications" as a separate item, as he valued reduced paper coming into <br /> homes, and that it wasn't simply about education. Chair Vanderwall noted other <br /> options for communication to educate residents on something negative that may <br /> be going on and how to alert them to change something (e.g. snow day alert for <br /> school, or paper recyclables blowing around the community). <br /> Environmental Benefits <br /> Member DeBenedet noted Mr. Pratt's previous comment that he could <br /> accomplish"zero waste events" without assistance. <br /> Mr. Pratt clarified that he would add that he could only do so if there remained a <br /> convenient drop-off site for those organic materials, since at this time he can take <br /> them to the Eureka MRF in Minneapolis. <br /> Member DeBenedet suggested that be included in the RFP that they had to take <br /> any organic material from the City from "zero waste events." Regarding <br /> "reduced carbon footprint," Member DeBenedet spoke in continuing support, as it <br /> should remain based on the City's involvement in the Green Step program. <br /> Member DeBenedet stated that he still questioned how to measure and the actual <br /> value of"Environmentally preferred purchasing (EPP)." Compared to "local <br /> vendor-terminal location," Member DeBenedet noted his higher weighting on that <br /> item, with the goal for reduced air pollution, traffic and fuel use. <br /> Page 9 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.