Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,June 17, 2013 <br /> Page 25 <br /> Mr. Schwartz clarified that it was only included in the definitions, and didn't have <br /> any impact. <br /> In Section 5.04 (page 17), Councilmember Willmus questioned the language in <br /> that section specific to dual sort that not needed removal. <br /> In Section 5.07 (page 19) regarding residual items at the MERF and tagging, <br /> Councilmember Willmus questioned if different vendors had different ways of <br /> handling those items and whether it was necessary for the City to designate it sim- <br /> ilar to how Eureka Recycling handles it, or leave it open for vendors to inform the <br /> City how they handle it. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that there were different ways for vendors to track them, <br /> many electronically for preprogrammed issues. Mr. Schwartz offered to further <br /> review that section to make it more generic, while still requiring them to report <br /> contamination issues. <br /> Mr. Pratt responded that all vendors have identification tags. <br /> Councilmember Etten advocated for making that section more generic; and ques- <br /> tioned if the tracking was done curbside or at the end location. <br /> Mr. Pratt responded that there were several typical ways, including cameras on <br /> the trucks as the carts were dumped to record content; as well as providing a loca- <br /> tion of the pick up through a GPS system, with some tagging done curbside for <br /> obvious contaminants. <br /> If moving to single stream, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if tagging went <br /> away, even with onboard cameras. <br /> Mr. Pratt responded in the negative, noting that the City still wanted to have a <br /> provision in place to notify people of contaminants in the education process. <br /> Consensus was to make language in that section more generic. <br /> In Section 8.04 (page 32), Councilmember Willmus suggested that revenue shar- <br /> ing should be a value added, questioning if it should even be in the RFP, as other <br /> vendors may have different programs. <br /> Mr. Pratt clarified that Section 8.05 (starting on page 34) addressed a percentage <br /> of revenue sharing as an option. Mr. Pratt further clarified that if that option was <br /> included in a bid, the City was specifying the terms for that revenue sharing, in <br /> knowing the value of those materials, since there was the possibility that someone <br /> could come up with using specific markets and pricing. Mr. Pratt advised that it <br />