My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-03-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-03-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2016 3:26:28 PM
Creation date
3/17/2016 3:21:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/22/2016
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.
/
65
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
488 Member Cihacek stated that he was fine with the city owning the carts if city <br />489 funds were available for their purchase; and if there would be no additional outlay <br />490 or implicit overhead costs with city ownership beyond their purchase, including <br />491 management and/or maintenance of the carts and it could be solvent within the <br />492 current budget. Member Cihacek opined that it seemed to be a good use for <br />493 revenue share funds going forward. <br />494 <br />495 Member Seigler concurred with Member Cihacek, opining that if the average life <br />496 expectancy for carts was up to ten years, it would result in a $2/month savings. <br />497 lak <br />498 By consensus, the PWETC majority supported city ownership of the carts. <br />499 <br />500 Section 5.05 - Zero Waste Events (pages 18 - 19) <br />501 Mr. Johnson noted current zero waste events; and asked if the PWETC would like <br />502 to add other events. <br />503 <br />504 Member Cihacek opined that he found the intent of this section va ue other than <br />505 requiring contractors to attend and collecting mat s. <br />506 <br />507 Mr. Johnson responded that the intent was 1 e ucate the public; 2) helping <br />508 people sort materials; 3) use of special compostable materials supplied by the city <br />509 (e.g. BPI -certified utensils). <br />510 <br />511 Member Cihacek questioned how contractor performance was measured. <br />512 <br />513 Mr. Johnson advised that, for the Taste of Roseville in 2015, the contractor <br />514 provided a report showing the composition of discarded material by volume; <br />515 providing overview as well as ' orming future events. <br />516 it <br />517 :ember Cihacek noted that this fi Eureka's operating model; but asked if <br />518 tendors offered this as part of their standard business model, or if this <br />519 vendors to only those with a similar core vision. <br />520 <br />521 <br />Mr.son advised that, as with the previous RFP, all vendors said they could <br />522 <br />do it an provided their ideas for how they could do so; and he saw no reason how <br />523 <br />this shouldli v rs. <br />524 <br />525 <br />Organic Compo n� Facility. <br />526 <br />Member Seigler asked if the City of Roseville had a composting facility at this <br />527 <br />time; with Mr. Johnson responding that it did not, and while it could be dropped <br />528 <br />at a Ramsey County site, any organics currently collected were brought to the <br />529 <br />Eureka Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). In response to Member Seigler, Mr. <br />530 <br />Johnson advised that the vendor would need to take that into consideration as part <br />531 <br />of their bid to provide that or subcontract with another MRF if they didn't have <br />532 <br />their own processing plant. However, Mr. Johnson advised that it was part of the <br />Page 12 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.