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 21 <br /> contract at the end of 2013. Mr. Schwartz suggested several information points to <br /> initiate tonight's discussion. Mr. Schwarz noted that Recycling Coordinator Tim <br /> Pratt was also available to address any information as needed, given his substan- <br /> tial work on the process and RFP to-date. <br /> Three (3) Year versus Five (5) Year Contract Term <br /> Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of leaving the contract open to see how <br /> responses were submitted. <br /> Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of all bidders provided both a three <br /> year and a five year bid to avoid confusion between the vendors and terms bid. <br /> While agreeing with Councilmember McGehee's preference, Councilmember <br /> Willmus opined that with the Best Value Procurement process, it would be bene- <br /> ficial for the base RFP to include a three and five year term option; with the value <br /> added component also included as a consideration. <br /> Mayor Roe suggested considering any value added components to the Best Value. <br /> Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten concurred with having a three and five year <br /> bid from all vendors to allow better comparison. <br /> Mayor Roe indicated the council direction to staff was, since there appeared to be <br /> no divergent opinion, to include at a minimum the three and five year terms and <br /> allow for other terms for consideration. <br /> Cart Purchases/Ownership <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that this seemed a sticky point from her per- <br /> spective, if a contract allowed a vendor to leave the carts versus reverting back to <br /> the vendor, especially if carts are broken and the City ended up owning them. <br /> Councilmember McGehee questioned if and how many other communities had <br /> tried this approach. <br /> Mr. Schwartz opined that he thought most communities purchased carts and <br /> owned them long-term, or the vendor owned them. Mr. Schwartz advised that the <br /> intent was to extend the community's investment in the carts over the first 3-5 <br /> years; and if the City purchases them as an upfront investment, that the vendor <br /> provide roll-out plans, maintenance and other ways to get the vendor involved in <br /> their maintenance through a number of options. Mr. Schwartz advised that he <br /> was not sure if the City required that the vender return the carts over after the five <br /> year period, if the community would realize any benefit. <br /> Mr. Pratt advised that he was unaware of any communities having had that re- <br /> quirement; noting that carts were constructed much better than in the past and av- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.