Laserfiche WebLink
491 Member Cihacek opined that, from his perspective, the draft language sounded very <br />492 contractual if it was intended only as an informational piece; and also noted that <br />493 there was no right of cancellation clause included, and questioned if this was <br />494 intended as an organization and free representation. <br />495 <br />496 Member Wozniak stated that, it was his understanding that this voluntary <br />497 neighborhood collection effort would essentially provide that some haulers would <br />498 create a contract through a business relationship with an entire block and/or <br />499 neighborhood as applicable. <br />500 <br />501 Member Cihacek opined that, while the volume per route increases, pricing was not <br />502 binding, and for informational purposes, he found language important to avoid <br />503 potential deceptive interpretation, and therefore changing language to be more <br />504 representative of information versus the contractual language in this current draft <br />505 guide. Since this is only supposed to provide a guide for the process or BMP's and <br />506 the City wasn't contracting for anything, Member Cihacek opi ed that he found the <br />507 language complex as currently written. <br />508 <br />509 Member Wozniak agreed with the complexity of the draft language, but also <br />510 suggesting backing up further, opining that he didn't anticipate many haulers <br />511 responding to a written letter as proposed that was seeking specific price <br />512 information. sk qq�1111111111111116 <br />513 <br />514 Members Seigler and Cihacek both opined that the response from haulers may be <br />515 surprising. <br />516 <br />517 Member Wozniak opined that rather than a letter, it may be easier for residents <br />518 looking for information to simply make some phone calls and do an interest survey <br />519 to determine what's most important to those specific residents related to garbage <br />520 service. <br />521 <br />522 Mr. CulveNrespo d that, without turning this guide into an even larger document, <br />523 it was the intent to make this guide available as a word document for editing <br />524 purpose; and encouraging them to do so and based on their specific interest. Mr. <br />525 Culver reiterated that this guide is intended simply as a recommendation, and <br />526 different residents will have different opinions as to their desired benefits, and <br />527 therefore, it was 0to them to put together a specific survey letter for their <br />528 neighborhood, adding language as desired. As to the earlier point raised, addressing <br />529 contacting haulers (Attachment A, suggested ideas for the process — Item #4), Mr. <br />530 Culver suggesting a phone call versus letter or e-mail if the neighborhood felt this <br />531 may provide more incentive for a hauler to respond; and opined that it may also <br />532 make a difference depending on the hauler. <br />533 <br />534 However, while agreeing it may be prudent to simplify current legalese in the <br />535 current guide, Mr. Culver expressed concern in how much language to include <br />536 making sure this remained clear for residents. Mr. Culver reiterated that the City <br />Page 12 of 18 <br />