2016-01-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

recycling wouldn't prove possible at a reasonable cost, thus part of Roseville's study of St. Paul's process going into this current RFP. Chair Stenlund asked if there were current areas of Roseville for recycling pick- up on one day, with parks done on one of the less -busy days for a vendor; and questioned if that would prove more economical and equitable for the vendor and city. Mr. Johnson advised that, based on the current vendor Eureka, it didn't really matter, as the price remained the same; and they worked through Roseville in under one day, no matter which day. Mr. Johnson noted that Eureka currently picked up from most of the City's multi -family units on Fridays, but also did the parks on Friday. Mr. Johnson noted that part of their rationale was in keeping single -unit materials together to provide the city with statistical data and separating single -units and multi -unit numbers to track what came out of each category's tipping's for tonnage and types of materials collected; and how, when and what occurred with each various pick-up type. Missed Collection Policv & Procedures - Section 5.11 (nage 21 & 22) Mr. Johnson advised that the most issues experienced in this area— or approximately 60% of missed or partial pick-ups were complaints that some materials were left in the receptacle. Mr. Johnson noted that Eureka was very responsive with next day pick-up generally. However, Mr. Johnson stated staff's desire to add this as a liquidated damage if it becomes a recurring issue with a future contract. With Eureka over a year, Mr. Johnson noted that of all Roseville residents, only a small percentage was reported, or approximately 80 reported missed or partial dumps. Liquidated Damages - Section 8.05 (pages 34 & 35) Mr. Johnson advised that Foth recommended a typical $50 fee depending on frequency of occurrence. Member Cihacek opined that the contract language needed more specificity of what is considered "damage" and the results of the damage of a missed or partial dump collection. Mr. Culver agreed, and as included in construction contracts, suggested better language would be "Performance Penalty." Member Cihacek noted that it would be difficult to assess damages if any when the contractor agreed to pick-up the next day, resulting in no damaged and if the resident wasn't filled an additional trip charge. From his perspective, Member Cihacek questioned if a penalty was appropriate if the vendor provided a remedy, since there was no damage. Member Cihacek opined that the $50 seemed random, and questioned what the actual damage was equal to. Page 16 of 20