2016-03-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

625 Chair Stenlund advised that the PWETC was not involved last time beyond 626 setting the criteria. 627 628 Member Cihacek expressed concern that the stakeholder perspective of the 629 PWETC may provide a different agenda than that of staff's perspective and 630 thereby score proposals differently. Even though he trusted staff to evaluate the 631 proposals, Member Cihacek noted that it still involved a qualified opinion from 632 staff's perspective. Member Cihacek opined that a lot of things occurred during 633 the evaluation of specific proposals and expressed his interest in serving on that 634 panel. Member Cihacek opined that it was at least worth having that conversation 635 at the PWETC level to involve a member of this commission or an interested 636 resident representing that stakeholder perspective. 637 638 Mr. Culver suggested that this option be presented to the City Council when the 639 draft RFP was presented to them at their March 14th meeting to see their interest 640 in that, providing the PWETC majorit sought that feedback a articipatory 641 level from the City Council. 642 643 Member Cihacek opined that the City Counci or someone beyonSsta should be 644 involved in the panel. IqIIIk 645 646 Chair Stenlund stated that Nhwould not be interested in serving; opining that it 647 was a lot of work and in some ways personally felt that ' as overstepping the 648 bounds of the PWETC. Chair Stenlund noted tPWETC participant(s) 649 would need to make sure they were fully prepared the amount of work and 650 time commitment needed. Chair Stenlund noted that he considered the 651 preliminary work of the PWETC in setting the stage and subsequent review of the 652 results as most appropriate, since the proposals would be based on input variables 653 nd weighting outlined a recommended by the PWETC. Chair Stenlund opined 654 that he was fine with staf ing the work based on the criteria set by the PWETC. 655 With the current transparency in local government and this process itself, Chair 656 Stenlund questioned how anything other than the previous process and established 657 evaluation variables could be improved upon. 658 Member Seigler agreed with Chair Stenlund's viewpoints, opining that it would 659 only add an ot r er of complexity; and opined that he had no desire to serve on 660 the panel. 661 662 Section 5.02 — Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements (pale 13) 663 Chair Stenlund suggested further clarification that a vendor will use new diesel 664 engines using the clean diesel concept, and not old beater trucks. While the age 665 may be insignificant, Chair Stenlund opined that the technology wasn't and 666 further opined that a vendor promoting natural gas or a cleaner burning fuel 667 should receive additional points accordingly. 668 Page 15 of 20