My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0617
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0617
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2013 10:12:53 AM
Creation date
7/16/2013 10:04:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/17/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,June 17,2013 <br /> Page 16 <br /> Member DeBenedet opined that, if Roseville residents called it recycling because <br /> it was in a different container than refuse, but it was still not recycled into another <br /> product, it wasn't recycling, and the community was simply feeling good with no <br /> effect. Member DeBenedet advised that the last direction provided by the <br /> PWETC to staff in developing the draft RFP was to include single and dual sort; <br /> with a mandate that each bidder state and demonstrate to the City where its recy- <br /> cling went and what it was recycling for the end market. Member DeBenedet <br /> noted that the City's goal was to increase recycling collections, but also to ensure <br /> those materials were actually being recycled. As an example, Member DeBene- <br /> det noted that the City of Minneapolis, when going to single sort recycling, their <br /> numbers shot up; however, he noted that their numbers were significantly lower <br /> than those of Roseville's as well, with current Roseville numbers indicating 80% <br /> participation or more. Member DeBenedet opined hat fine-tuning was important, <br /> but allowing a wider range of bidders was also important. <br /> Regarding recycling and community values, Councilmember Willmus questioned <br /> to what extent outreach had been conducted to measure those values. Coun- <br /> cilmember Willmus stated that he heard repeatedly from residents their preference <br /> to move to single stream and sue carts; and referenced a flyer from Eureka Recy- <br /> cling supporting that community support. <br /> Vice Chair Stenlund advised that the PWETC had researched community values <br /> through performing surveys; and that the City's goal of maximizing community <br /> recycling could be re-evaluated if it was determined that the single stream pro- <br /> gram didn't accomplish that; and upon renewal or rebidding the contract, it could <br /> return to a dual sort system. Vice Chair Stenlund opined that the important thing <br /> was to attempt innovations and try to find the best way to accomplish the goals. <br /> Mayor Roe, whether in considering recycling or refuse, opined that if more was <br /> being recycled than ending up as refuse, the community would find that supporta- <br /> ble. Mayor Roe opined that the question is what is realistic; and the only way to <br /> know that was through reporting mandates in the recycling contract. <br /> Vice Chair Stenlund noted that another consideration for carts versus bins is the <br /> workers compensation costs for vendors in their employees lifting bins versus a <br /> single sort system with a cart that was lifted through robotic means, with the fu- <br /> ture probably trying to eliminate some of the human components and costs. <br /> Councilmember Willmus asked if the PWETC had addressed why other commu- <br /> nities are switching to single sort recycling. <br /> Member DeBenedet advised that the PWETC had discussed researching that; <br /> however, there was no contact with other communities; while indications were <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.