2016-02-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

583 interest in seeing evidence to support Chair Stenlund's argument related to that 584 term. 585 586 Member Wozniak stated his faith in the Foth firm; and his support of their 587 suggestion for a 5 year term as representing the city's best interests. 588 589 Member Cihacek noted the term was insignificant, whether it ended up with an 590 initial 5 year term, or a 3 year term with 2 annual extensions, or any other 591 configuration. 592 111111111lllL 593 Mr. Culver noted the unknown interest of and contractor response to a 5 year term 594 plus 2 annual extensions, and whether they would be interested from their 595 perspectives. 596 597 Member Cihacek opined that a 7 year contract seemed a particularly long term in 598 the public sector, generally seeing maximum 5 year terms. However, Member 599 Cihacek suggested asking the vendor to justify price breaks in the 6th or 7th years 600 if they project they can recoup more costs. Mem ihacek opined it may be 601 advantageous for the city include that option in RFP, guaranteeing a 3 year 602 contract with 2 or 4 ann Bions, while not binding the city to a longer 603 contract at its initiation. ""��iii�llllllllllll�. 604 605 Chair Stenlund noted the current partnership status with Eureka based on the 606 negotiated contract as a result of the previous RFP process, with the vendor tasked 607 with developing an annual plan in conjunction with city staff to enhance recycling 608 and education efforts rather than sim 1 operating in a vacuum. 609 1101111lll 610 Proposal including Costs for Recycling within Roseville Parks (Section 5.21, 611 Municipal Facilities — page 24 612 Mr. Johnson noted potential impacts t arks and systems; and cost benefit 613 analysis needed depending on receptacle type and their location. 614 615 At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Johnson clarified the rationale in three 616 different price points, based on the location of receptacles, whether collected by 617 the vendor or brought to a central location by Parks Department maintenance staff 618 or need to separate aggregate recycling materials, not a desired chore by those 619 personnel based on differences in aggregate recycling materials versus regular 620 trash; and dependent on the park's frequency or use and/or events. Mr. Johnson 621 noted that some parks had larger receptacles also while some had intermediate 622 drop off points. 623 624 Member Cihacek questioned if the vendor contract could include a provision for 625 intermediate exclusive recyclable content. 626 627 Mr. Johnson duly noted that suggestion and agreed that it could be an option for 628 consideration. Page 14 of 20