My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2016 8:07:20 AM
Creation date
2/24/2016 8:05:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/26/2016
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Culver defined it as the approximate staff time to deal with the complaint(s). <br />Member Seigler questioned if it was only charged if a repeated occurrence, and <br />not for every call; with Mr. Johnson responding that the intent was only for <br />repeated offences to provide the city with necessary teeth if it becomes <br />problematic. <br />Member Cihacek stated that he would find "Performance Penalty" better <br />terminology than "Liquidated Damages." Member Cihacek also questioned if it <br />was better to include this as part of the contract language or part of the <br />solicitation; and if it occurred frequently, perhaps this vendor should not be <br />retained, creating a different performance issue. <br />Member Wozniak suggested further discussion or some proof of how staff arrived <br />at this city cost and how it was reflected or justified in a performance penalty. <br />Member Cihacek noted that it was important that the city not attempt to make <br />money on the performance penalty, but to determine whether the city was losing <br />money due to the performance issue; noting it may not always benefit the city in <br />considering other issues. <br />Member Wozniak suggested, however, that it needed to be based on some <br />enforcement ability by the city to encourage a vendor to act in good faith. <br />Member Lenz questioned how many partial dumps were actually the faults of <br />residents. <br />Mr. Johnson responded it dependent on who you talked to. When some material <br />falls out when put into the receptacle or cart by a resident, Mr. Johnson noted that <br />when checked out by Eureka, frequently the materials were packed in too tight. <br />Mr. Culver noted that, at one point, there was some speculation on whether the <br />position of hydraulic arms on the neck of medium sized carts might squeeze too <br />hard or constrict complete dumping, a theory seen on multiple occasions. <br />Member Wozniak noted that he packed his cart tightly, but had never experienced <br />a problem. <br />Member Seigler noted there were only 80 reported incidents, and therefore may <br />not prove problematic in any event. <br />Revenue Sharing <br />Mr. Johnson reported that staff recommended retaining this as part of a future <br />contract no matter how dismal the commodities market currently looked. <br />Page 17 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.