Laserfiche WebLink
491 <br />addressing language of the two clauses brought forward during tonight's PWETC <br />492 <br />discussion. <br />493 <br />494 <br />Mr. Culver advised that staff could provide additional information on the risks as <br />495 <br />part of their Request for Council Action when presented to the City Council with <br />496 <br />the PWETC's recommendation. <br />497 <br />498 <br />Ayes:7 <br />499 <br />Nays:0 <br />500 <br />Motion carried. <br />501 <br />502 7. <br />Recycling RFP Discussion °11I <br />503 <br />Mr. Culver deferred to Environmental Engineer RyanJohnson for presenting the <br />504 <br />2017 Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP) as detailed in the staff report dated <br />505 <br />506 <br />January 26, 2016. <br />507 <br />Noting that the city's current three-ar contract with Eureka ecycling for city - <br />508 <br />wide recycling services expires year-end 2016, Mr. Johnson noted that staff had <br />509 <br />been consulting with Ramsey County as it initiated a new RFP, resulting in this <br />510 <br />first draft for PWETC review and comment. Mr. Johnson noted the areas of <br />511 <br />discussion for tonight suggested by staff in the staff report; and highlighted other <br />512 <br />areas of the RFP to garner their input. "'°��ii�lllllllllllllll �. <br />513 <br />514 <br />Mr. Johnson referenced and ex ssed appreciation for the assistance of Jean <br />515 <br />Buckley and Kate Bartlet with R sey County and that of Foth Infrastructure & <br />516 <br />Environment, LLC for their assistance and overview in preparing an updated RFP <br />517 <br />and future contract considerations. Mr. Johnson noted they provided good input <br />518 <br />for staff in clarifying and fine -t ing general language. <br />519 <br />520 I;e <br />detailed in the staff report and a taclitnents provided, Mr. Johnson highlighted <br />521 <br />following areas; with P TC members offering input as indicated on the <br />522 <br />and related indices or added components. <br />523 <br />111 <br />524 <br />Contract Term — 3 or 5 years <br />525 <br />Mr. Johnson noted that Ramsey County recommended a five-year term for the <br />526 <br />next contract. <br />527 <br />"""iillllllll <br />528 <br />Member CihaceRtrated his support for a three year contact, with annual extension <br />529 <br />up to five years, especially based on current market issues, and helping the city <br />530 <br />and vendor both maintain a competitive stance. <br />531 <br />532 <br />Chair Stenlund stated, with that market volatility, a five year contract would <br />533 <br />provide more consistency for the city. Chair Stenlund opined that a positive for <br />534 <br />him would be a five year contract, plus two extensions, anticipating a better bid <br />535 <br />for a vendor to overcome large variances in world commodity downturns. <br />OR <br />Page 12 of 20 <br />