2015_0914_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Excerpt from May 26, 2015 Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Neighborhood Organized Trash Collection Guide Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the history of this request by the City Council at their April 20, 2015 meeting, and directing staff to bring forward a residential trash organization kit/process model for their review and potential adoption. As detailed in the staff report, Mr. Culver advised that staff provided several models and had drafted a Roseville Neighborhood Organized Trash Collection Guide (Attachment A). Mr. Culver advised that several additional minor changes had been made to the draft since distribution of the agenda packet; but noted the intent of the document was simply to provide a factual and simple guide for residential neighborhoods interested in organized trash collection to pursue that initiative. While there were some references in the models used that discussed potential benefits, which were debatable of themselves by many, such as wear and tear of trash vehicles on pavement lifecycles, Mr. Culver stated that, from an engineering perspective, the Roseville Public Works Department could not prove that those had a significant impact on the lifecycle of a street. Mr. Culver opined that staff thought pavement lifecycles had more to do with environmental and climate issues; and therefore, removed any and all opinion items and attempted to only present facts going forward. Mr. Culver also clarified that this was not intended as any type of formal city program, but only intended to serve as a guide to provide citizens a matrix and sample letter they could use to draft their own program and accumulate data and disseminate it to neighbors for their own decisions. Mr. Culver sought feedbacic and comment from the PWETC, advising that it was staff's intent to present those findings and a revised draft to the City Council at their scheduled joint meeting with the PWETC on June 22, 2015. However, Mr. Culver advised that it was also his preference to provide the draft and feedback to the City Council prior to their meeting, and post the draft on the website if so authorized. At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver opined that since this was a residential or neighborhood guide, there was no process required under public procurement laws; and only serves for residents who may choose to shop for these services in the future. Member Cihacek opined that each resident in a specific neighborhood considering this would need to agree and a proposed contract and price would need to be redone by a hauler for each household for pricing even though they were not guaranteed the sale and were providing that inforination to the public and their competitors. Member Cihacek questioned if there should be required language in the guide related to those individual contract and a non-binding clause regarding the pricing, depending on the number of residents signing up for that service. Mr. Culver clarified that the language was specific for individual homeowners and would not be a collective contract unless through a homeowner's association or other legal entity, as per draft language.