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 26 <br /> was vital that the City set the bar for those market prices, allowing vendors com- <br /> ing in to know what the true value is. <br /> Councilmember Willmus questioned why that could not be accomplished through <br /> the value added side. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that the vendor could potentially do so if there was less <br /> specificity, but probably could be highlighted more in the general specifications. <br /> Councilmember McGehee expressed concern, whether revenue sharing was done <br /> or not, that the RFP be comparable; avoiding one coming in with an offset of rev- <br /> enue sharing and another without that offset; and questioned if all vendors offered <br /> revenue sharing. <br /> Mr. Pratt responded that revenue sharing was quite standard now. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that everyone should then submit their bid ac- <br /> cordingly. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Schwartz clarified that the pro- <br /> posals should be comparable as long as the vendor provided revenue sharing by <br /> percentage. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Pratt reviewed how various ven- <br /> dors tagged or identified their revenue sharing programs, some on a flat cost to <br /> offset and some getting a percentage as currently done in Roseville. Mr. Pratt ad- <br /> vised that the last time the contract went out to bid the City used a consultant from <br /> Ramsey County to evaluate the revenue sharing component, as they calculated it <br /> on the market average for the last twelve months for each commodity. Mr. Pratt <br /> advised that Ramsey County had offered the assistance of their consultant again to <br /> perform those calculations. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Pratt confirmed that this service was at no cost <br /> to the City. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that revenue sharing had some risks, especially with a con- <br /> tract with a lower rate and lower revenue share; and advised that Finance Director <br /> Miller had provided some analysis on this, but it was hard to predict. <br /> Councilmember Willmus recognized that, as commodities, they were hard to pre- <br /> dict. <br /> At the request of Mr. Schwartz, Mayor Roe noted his preference for the actual <br /> cost, as long as it was very well-defined during the evaluation process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.