2015_0914_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Cihacek opined that, from his perspective, the draft language sounded very contractual if it was intended only as an informational piece; and also noted that there was no right of cancellation clause included, and questioned if this was intended as an organization and free representation. Member Wozniak stated that, it was his understanding that this voluntary neighborhood collection effort would essentially provide that some haulers would create a contract through a business relationship with an entire block and/or neighborhood as applicable. Member Cihacek opined that, while the volume per route increases, pricing was not binding, and for informational purposes, he found language important to avoid potential deceptive interpretation, and therefore changing language to be more representative of information versus the contractual language in this current draft guide. Since this is only supposed to provide a guide for the process or BMP's and the City wasn't contracting for anything, Member Cihacek opined that he found the language complex as currently written. Member Wozniak agreed with the complexity of the draft language, but also suggesting backing up further, opining that he didn't anticipate many haulers responding to a written letter as proposed that was seeking specific price information. Members Seigler and Cihacek both opined that the response from haulers may be surpri sing. Member Wozniak opined that rather than a letter, it may be easier for residents looking for information to simply make some phone calls and do an interest survey to determine what's most important to those specific residents related to garbage service. Mr. Culver responded that, without turning this guide into an even larger document, it was the intent to make this guide available as a word document for editing purpose; and encouraging them to do so and based on their specific interest. Mr. Culver reiterated that this guide is intended simply as a recommendation, and different residents will have different opinions as to their desired benefits, and therefore, it was up to them to put together a specific survey letter for their neighborhood, adding language as desired. As to the earlier point raised, addressing contacting haulers (Attachment A, suggested ideas for the process — Item #4), Mr. Culver suggesting a phone call versus letter or e-mail if the neighborhood felt this may provide more incentive for a hauler to respond; and opined that it may also make a difference depending on the hauler. However, while agreeing it may be prudent to simplify current legalese in the current guide, Mr. Culver expressed concern in how much language to include making sure this remained clear for residents. Mr. Culver reiterated that the City had no skin in this game, and was not accountable, as none of the municipal requirements or restrictions applied to this process. Mr. Culver reiterated that any arrangement made was strictly between the hauler of choice and residents; and they would need to work out their own collective terms, guarantees and how binding it ended up being. Mr. Culver opined that he