Laserfiche WebLink
445 <br />446 6. Neighborhood Organized Trash Collection Guide <br />447 Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the history of this request by the City Council at their <br />448 April 20, 2015 meeting, and directing staff to bring forward a residential trash <br />449 organization kit/process model for their review and potential adoption. As detailed <br />450 in the staff report, Mr. Culver advised that staff provided several models and had <br />451 drafted a Roseville Neighborhood Organized Trash Collection Guide (Attachment <br />452 A). Mr. Culver advised that several additional minor changes had been made to the <br />453 draft since distribution of the agenda packet; but noted the intent of the document <br />454 was simply to provide a factual and simple guide for residential neighborhoods <br />455 interested in organized trash collection to pursue that initiative. <br />456 <br />457 While there were some references in the models used that discussed potential <br />458 benefits, which were debatable of themselves by many, such as wear and tear of <br />459 trash vehicles on pavement lifecycles, Mr. Culver stated that, from an engineering <br />460 perspective, the Roseville Public Works Department could not prove that those had <br />461 a significant impact on the lifecycle of a street. Mr. Culver opined that staff thought <br />462 pavement lifecycles had more to do with environmental and climate issues; and <br />463 therefore, removed any and all opinion items and attempted to onlyesent facts <br />464 going forward. Mr. Culver also clarified that this was not intended afany type of <br />465 formal city program, but only intended to serve as a guide to provide citizens a <br />466 matrix and sample letter they could use to draft their own program and accumulate <br />467 data and disseminate it to neighbors for their own decisions. Mr. Culver sought <br />468 feedback and comment from the PWETC, advising that it was staff s intent to <br />469 present those findings and a revised draft to the City Council at their scheduled j oint <br />470 meeting with the PWETC on June 22, 2015. However, Mr. Culver advised that it <br />471 was also his preference to provide the draft and feedback to the City Council prior <br />472 eeting, and post the draft on the website if so authorized. <br />473 <br />474 t the request of MemSerCihac , Mr. Culver opined that since this was a <br />475 sidentialor neighborhuide, there was no process required under public <br />476 ocurement laws; and oes for residents who may choose to shop for these <br />477 serv�ces in the future. <br />478 m <br />479 <br />Member Cihacek opined that each resident in a specific neighborhood considering <br />480 <br />this would need to agree and a proposed contract and price would need to be redone <br />481 <br />by a hauler for each household for pricing even though they were not guaranteed <br />482 <br />the sale and wefb providing that information to the public and their competitors. <br />483 <br />Member Cihacek questioned if there should be required language in the guide <br />484 <br />related to those individual contract and a non-binding clause regarding the pricing, <br />485 <br />depending on the number of residents signing up for that service. <br />486 <br />487 <br />Mr. Culver clarified that the language was specific for individual homeowners and <br />488 <br />would not be a collective contract unless through a homeowner's association or <br />489 <br />other legal entity, as per draft language. <br />490 <br />Page 11 of 18 <br />