2016-02-23_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Stenlund advised that the PWETC was not involved last time beyond setting the criteria. Member Cihacek expressed concern that the stakeholder perspective of the PWETC may provide a different agenda than that of staff's perspective and thereby score proposals differently. Even though he trusted staff to evaluate the proposals, Member Cihacek noted that it still involved a qualified opinion from staff s perspective. Member Cihacek opined that a lot of things occurred during the evaluation of specific proposals and expressed his interest in serving on that panel. Member Cihacek opined that it was at least worth having that conversation at the PWETC level to involve a member of this commission or an interested resident representing that stakeholder perspective. Mr. Culver suggested that this option be presented to the City Council when the draft RFP was presented to them at their March 14th meeting to see their interest in that, providing the PWETC majority sought that feedback and participatory level from the City Council. Member Cihacek opined that the City Council or someone beyond staff should be involved in the panel. Chair Stenlund stated that he would not be interested in serving; opining that it was a lot of work and in some ways personally felt that it was overstepping the bounds of the PWETC. Chair Stenlund noted that the PWETC participant(s) would need to make sure they were fully prepared for the amount of work and time commitment needed. Chair Stenlund noted that he considered the preliminary work of the PWETC in setting the stage and subsequent review of the results as most appropriate, since the proposals would be based on input variables and weighting outlined and recommended by the PWETC. Chair Stenlund opined that he was fine with staff doing the work based on the criteria set by the PWETC. With the current transparency in local government and this process itself, Chair Stenlund questioned how anything other than the previous process and established evaluation variables could be improved upon. Member Seigler agreed with Chair Stenlund's viewpoints, opining that it would only add another layer of complexity; and opined that he had no desire to serve on the panel. Section 5.02—Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements (page 13) Chair Stenlund suggested further clarification that a vendor will use new diesel engines using the clean diesel concept, and not old beater trucks. While the age may be insignificant, Chair Stenlund opined that the technology wasn't and further opined that a vendor promoting natural gas or a cleaner burning fuel should receive additional points accordingly. Page 15 of 20