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 24 <br /> Mr. Pratt provided an example of MERF materials and the percentage per vendor <br /> of total materials received, materials rejected, residual rate, and recycling rate. <br /> Mr. Pratt noted that, in the City of Roseville's pilot program, people were some- <br /> times attempting to put things, such as window frames, in the carts, which were <br /> not recyclable. <br /> In recognizing that the tons collected and amount of recyclable materials, Mayor <br /> Roe noted that residual items would have gone into a landfill anyway; and while <br /> the percentage is one thing, the total was also important. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that, part of the evaluation process may include a visit to <br /> the MERF facility by the evaluation team to get a better idea of how they're han- <br /> dling things. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Pratt advised that the percentage of materials <br /> not recyclable was typically mandated to be sent to a specific landfill. <br /> Mayor Roe opined that understanding that part of the process was important. <br /> Based on community interest and support, Councilmember Etten opined that the <br /> RFP should go out with only the single sort option. <br /> With no divergence of opinion, Mayor Roe indicated the council direction to staff <br /> was to only request proposals for single sort for the RFP. <br /> Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten expressed their interest in the RFP coming <br /> back to the City Council for one more review at a future meeting with more detail <br /> and revised based on tonight's discussion and direction. <br /> Additional RFP Items/Discussion Points <br /> Councilmember Willmus questioned Sections 4.17 and 4.29, 4.34 (pages 9 and <br /> 11) and how they tied to Section 7.01 (page 29) specific to the type of plastic ma- <br /> terials being recycled and contamination concerns (e.g. plastic bottle pumps; high <br /> melt point of certain ceramic items, and coated paper packages). <br /> In Section 7.01, Councilmember Laliberte noted that facilities were specified for <br /> all materials to be recycled. <br /> Mr. Pratt clarified that Section 4.34 (page 11), excluded plastic designed "6" un- <br /> less Styrofoam. <br /> Regarding Section 4.46 for zero waste events, Councilmember Willmus ques- <br /> tioned if this should be included as a standard in the RFP or just as a value added. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.