CC_Minutes_2013_0617 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 17, 2013 Page 24 Mr. Pratt provided an example of MERF materials and the percentage per vendor of total materials received, materials rejected, residual rate, and recycling rate. Mr. Pratt noted that, in the City of Roseville's pilot program, people were some- times attempting to put things, such as window frames, in the carts, which were not recyclable. In recognizing that the tons collected and amount of recyclable materials, Mayor Roe noted that residual items would have gone into a landfill anyway; and while the percentage is one thing, the total was also important. Mr. Schwartz advised that, part of the evaluation process may include a visit to the MERF facility by the evaluation team to get a better idea of how they're han- dling things. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Pratt advised that the percentage of materials not recyclable was typically mandated to be sent to a specific landfill. Mayor Roe opined that understanding that part of the process was important. Based on community interest and support, Councilmember Etten opined that the RFP should go out with only the single sort option. With no divergence of opinion, Mayor Roe indicated the council direction to staff was to only request proposals for single sort for the RFP. Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten expressed their interest in the RFP coming back to the City Council for one more review at a future meeting with more detail and revised based on tonight's discussion and direction. Additional RFP Items/Discussion Points Councilmember Willmus questioned Sections 4.17 and 4.29, 4.34 (pages 9 and 11) and how they tied to Section 7.01 (page 29) specific to the type of plastic ma- terials being recycled and contamination concerns (e.g. plastic bottle pumps; high melt point of certain ceramic items, and coated paper packages). In Section 7.01, Councilmember Laliberte noted that facilities were specified for all materials to be recycled. Mr. Pratt clarified that Section 4.34 (page 11), excluded plastic designed "6" un- less Styrofoam. Regarding Section 4.46 for zero waste events, Councilmember Willmus ques- tioned if this should be included as a standard in the RFP or just as a value added.