Laserfiche WebLink
675 <br />recycling wouldn't prove possible at a reasonable cost, thus part of Roseville's <br />676 <br />study of St. Paul's process going into this current RFP. <br />677 <br />678 <br />Chair Stenlund asked if there were current areas of Roseville for recycling pick - <br />679 <br />up on one day, with parks done on one of the less -busy days for a vendor; and <br />680 <br />questioned if that would prove more economical and equitable for the vendor and <br />681 <br />city. <br />682 <br />683 <br />Mr. Johnson advised that, based on the current vendor Eureka, it didn't really <br />684 <br />matter, as the price remained the same; and they worked through Roseville in <br />685 <br />under one day, no matter which day. Mr. Johnson noted that Eureka currently <br />686 <br />picked up from most of the City's multi -family units on Fridays, but also did the <br />687 <br />parks on Friday. Mr. Johnson noted that part of their rationale was in keeping <br />688 <br />single -unit materials together to provide the city with statistical data and <br />689 <br />separating single -units and multi -unit numbers to track what came out of each <br />690 <br />category's tippings for tonnage and types of materials collected- and how, when <br />691 <br />and what occurred with each various pick-up type. <br />692qw <br />693 <br />Missed Collection Policv & Procedures - Section 5.11 (Daae 21 & <br />694 Mr. Johnson advised that them st issues experienced in this area — off' <br />695 approximately 60% of missed or partial pick-upijjglwere complaints that some <br />696 materials were left in the receptacle. Mr. Johnso noted that Eureka was very <br />697 responsive with next day pick-up generally. However, Mr. Johnson stated staff's <br />698 desire to add this as a liquidated damage if it becomes a recurring issue with a <br />699 future contract. With Eureka over a year, Mr. Johnson noted that of all Roseville <br />700 residents, only a small percentage was reported, or approximately 80 reported <br />701 missed or part qal ump <br />702 <br />703 iquidated Damages - Section 8.05 (pages 34 &35 <br />704 Mr. Johnson advised that Foth recommended a typical $50 fee depending on <br />705 4frequency of occurrence. <br />706 <br />707 Member Cihacek opined that the contract language needed more specificity of <br />708 what is considered "damage" and the results of the damage of a missed or partial <br />709 dump collection. <br />710 <br />711 Mr. CulveraN,4edas included in construction contracts, suggested better <br />712 language wouldformance Penalty." <br />713 <br />714 Member Cihacek noted that it would be difficult to assess damages if any when <br />715 the contractor agreed to pick-up the next day, resulting in no damages and if the <br />716 resident wasn't billed an additional trip charge. From his perspective, Member <br />717 Cihacek questioned if a penalty was appropriate if the vendor provided a remedy, <br />718 since there was no damage. Member Cihacek opined that the $50 seemed <br />719 random, and questioned what the actual damage was equal to. <br />720 <br />Page 16 of 20 <br />