2013-05-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Schwartz noted that the City was in "group 3" as far as the schedule for existing permits, but 150 days after the release of the permit, the City would be required to apply for the new permit, anticipating that the new requirements would be related in August of 2013. Vice Chair Stenlund opined that this would be an aggressive timeframe for many communities. No one from the public appeared with questions/comments related to the NPDES Program. 6. Recycling Contract Draft RFP Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt present was present to continue discussions from previous meetings and review the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new comprehensive recycling service contract, as the current contract expires at year- end. The document was included and detailed in the agenda packet materials (Attachment A), along with Recycling Community Values developed by the PWETC and weighting assigned and prioritized for those values (Attachment B). Mr. Pratt highlighted components of the RFP, intended as a Best Value Process with no identification of vendors as they documented their performance, with a restricted amount of supplemental data allowed. Mr. Pratt sought additional feedback and comment from the PWETC on any areas needing further clarification. Mr. Pratt reviewed how the community values were intended to work in the RFP process, followed by the interview section. Mr. Pratt pointed out several items for the PWETC's attention, including Section 4.07 that included vendor pick-up of additional plastics as a standard; and Section 5.05 (page 18) seeking organic collection options, as dictated by Ramsey County's ruling that all municipalities provide for planned collection of organics by the end of 2016. At the request of Vice Chair Stenlund, Mr. Pratt noted that organic materials included food waste, and other paper products (e.g. paper plates, napkins, etc.) not currently included in allowable paper collections. Mr. Pratt advised that staff anticipated that most bids would come in for single cart collection; and noted that the City of Maplewood's tonnage actually went down for some unknown reason during their first year of moving to roll-out carts; and cautioned that changing may take some time to implement. Conversely, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City of Minneapolis had experienced a significant increase in collections when moving to carts. However, Member DeBenedet noted that the City of Minneapolis had started at a very low participation number to begin with. Based on those considerations, Mr. Pratt brought up the question of cart ownership (Section 5.22) and an included provision that remained open for ownership by the vendor and/or City. With a vendor able to amortize the cost of Page 5 of 15