Laserfiche WebLink
interest in seeing evidence to support Chair Stenlund's argument related to that <br />term. <br />Member Wozniak stated his faith in the Foth firm; and his support of their <br />suggestion for a 5 year term as representing the city's best interests. <br />Member Cihacek noted the term was insignificant, whether it ended up with an <br />initial 5 year term, or a 3 year term with 2 annual extensions, or any other <br />configuration. <br />Mr. Culver noted the unknown interest of and contractor response to a 5 year term <br />plus 2 annual extensions, and whether they would be interested from their <br />perspectives. <br />Member Cihacek opined that a 7 year contract seemed a particularly long term in <br />the public sector, generally seeing maximum 5 year terms. However, Member <br />Cihacek suggested asking the vendor to justify price breaks in the 6"' or 7t' years <br />if they project they can recoup more costs. Member Cihacek opined it may be <br />advantageous for the city to include that option in the RFP, guaranteeing a 3 year <br />contract with 2 or 4 annual extensions, while not binding the city to a longer <br />contract at its initiation. <br />Chair Stenlund noted the current partnership status with Eureka based on the <br />negotiated contract as a result of the previous RFP process, with the vendor tasked <br />with developing an annual plan in conjunction with city staff to enhance recycling <br />and education efforts rather than simply operating in a vacuum. <br />Proposal including Costs for Recycling within Roseville Parks (Section 5.21, <br />Municipal Facilities — page 24) <br />Mr. Johnson noted potential impacts to parks and systems; and cost benefit <br />analysis needed depending on receptacle type and their location. <br />At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Johnson clarified the rationale in three <br />different price points, based on the location of receptacles, whether collected by <br />the vendor or brought to a central location by Parks Department maintenance staff <br />or need to separate aggregate recycling materials, not a desired chore by those <br />personnel based on differences in aggregate recycling materials versus regular <br />trash; and dependent on the park's frequency or use and/or events. Mr. Johnson <br />noted that some parks had larger receptacles also while some had intermediate <br />drop off points. <br />Member Cihacek questioned if the vendor contract could include a provision for <br />intermediate exclusive recyclable content. <br />Mr. Johnson duly noted that suggestion and agreed that it could be an option for <br />consideration. <br />Page 14 of 20 <br />