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
533 process and they would provide prices accordingly through multiple and <br />534 competitive bids accordingly. <br />535 <br />536 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the city reserved <br />537 the right to add other zero waste events to the contract term. <br />538 <br />539 Chair Stenlund reminded to make sure it was clear in the RP that vendors reported <br />540 annually to the PWETC with an update, suggested improvements or challenges. <br />541 <br />542 Costs IAL <br />543 Mr. Johnson noted that Roseville had served as the "golden child" of recycling <br />544 from a rate perspective, and therefore advised that the only way to go would most <br />545 likely be an increase in that rate. Mr. Johnson reviewed the current Eureka <br />546 contract and annual costs based on the 2013 RFP process receiving a total of three <br />547 proposals from vendors. Mr. Johnson also included a price comparison from Foth <br />548 in the matrix. Mr. Johnson noted that the county-wide average for curbside <br />549 collection every-other-week was anticipated at approximately $3.20/unit. <br />550 Vik <br />551 Member Wozniak stated that he had a problem with current multi-family facilities <br />552 paying a per unit fee; and suggested instead a "pull" rate for multi-family units; <br />553 and further suggested the RFP say those facilities should designate a proscriptive <br />554 96 gallon cart size. <br />555 <br />556 Mr. Johnson noted that the RFP does indicate that the contractor provide another <br />557 location for cardboard and larger recyclable items to avoid filling up carts. <br />558 <br />559 Member Wozniak suggested leaving up to the contractor as to what type or <br />560 eAt <br />of carts, especially if Ramse Cou s paying for containers. <br />561 <br />562 he request of Member Seigler, er Wozniak defined the "pull" rate that <br />563 ressed either per container, per cart or per stop, depending on the contractor's <br />564 use. <br />565 <br />566 Mr. Johnson agreed that using the "pull" rate would provide more flexibility for <br />567 the vendor, but suggested a minimum for the bidding floor and to guarantee the <br />568 containers are ' ht -sized for the facility and number of units. <br />569 <br />570 Member Cihacek noted that, as part of their due diligence in responding to the <br />571 RFP, each vendor could request that information and based on their perspective, <br />572 make sure right-sized containers are bid for multi-family units. Member Cihacek <br />573 suggested that the RFP make it clear that the city would only work with vendors <br />574 willing to provide the right-sized containers. <br />575 <br />576 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Johnson advised that the cost does not <br />577 include the revenue share assumption. <br />578 <br />Page 13 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.