Laserfiche WebLink
579 Member Cihacek asked, if the city took on cart ownership, would they be <br />580 amortized for one year or for a longer period. <br />581 <br />582 Mr. Culver responded that it may depend on the fund balance and input from the <br />583 City's Finance Director. Mr. Culver agreed that, if the fund balance was <br />584 sufficient, there should be no discussion; and to that extent, staff should be able to <br />585 perform a pseudo -amortization and rebuilt the fund balance, recognizing that it <br />586 may never reach today's high. <br />587 <br />588 Member Wozniak noted that, in the pricing sheet pr red by staff, they did <br />589 include a "per pull" price for park collection. <br />590 <br />591 Cart Size <br />592 Recognizing the limited space available in some residential garages in Roseville, <br />593 Member Wozniak suggested weekly collection would allow some of those units <br />594 to move to a smaller cart for stora <br />595 0 <br />596 Proposal Review Committee/Interview Panel <br />597 Member Wozniak askedtthe <br />was involved in the RFP review panel and how the <br />598 PWETC fit in. <br />599 <br />600 Mr. Johnson advised tha%det <br />s had yet to be c nfirmed on the staff and <br />601 City Council level; but encouraged comment from the ETC if they had <br />602 recommendations for the interview panel. <br />603 <br />604 Mr. Culver advised that staff generally performNtinitial scoring of proposals, <br />605 based on their familiarity with the Best Value Process, including the price <br />606 component. Mr. Culver noted that this RFP would prove more challenging with <br />607 the many options, making it difficult to ensure a blind price comparison. Mr. <br />608 Culver noted that the typical process red each proposal based on the values <br />609 and their weight before getting to the price. However, Mr. Culver noted, <br />610 depending on which options were selected and their complexities, it would impact <br />611 that pricing for overall scoring 4proposals. Depending on the timing, Mr. <br />612 Culver advised that the intent was for staff to then bring it back to the PWETC for <br />613 scoring on each proposal, including staff s recommendation and the PWETC's <br />614 subsequen recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Culver advised that the <br />615 process would then move into a negotiation period with the contractor, to <br />616 ultimately ratify a contract during the summer of 2016. <br />617 <br />618 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Culver proposed that the PWETC would <br />619 see all rankings and an explanation of how the end recommendation was arrived <br />620 at. <br />621 <br />622 Member Cihacek asked if there was any reason staff would not consider using <br />623 someone from the PWETC as part of that evaluation. <br />Page 14 of 20 <br />