My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2016 3:26:11 PM
Creation date
7/26/2016 10:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/18/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 18, 2016 <br />Page 17 <br />the senior population, as an example Councilmember Etten noted recent Parks & <br />Recreation program focus and response far those seniars, when resurfacing tennis <br />courts by adding Pickleball lines to allow that activity on those courts as well. <br />As noted at the conclusion of City Manager Trudgeon's presentation, Mayor Roe <br />reviewed next steps and upcoming opportunities for public comment. <br />14. Business Items (Action Items) <br />a. Recycling Service Proposal <br />Public Works Director Marc Culver briefly introduced the presentation and rec- <br />ognized the incredible amount of work by Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson <br />over the last months and his summarization of an amazing amount of information <br />resulting from four very good proposals received. Mr. Culver noted the current <br />recycling contract expires the end of 2016; and asked that the City Council would <br />provide guidance to staff on which option(s) to pursue and to authorize final ne- <br />gotiations with those options as indicated. <br />Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson <br />Mr. Johnson summarized components of the review, including criteria, proposals, <br />scoring, costs for cart ownership, and actual service costs for curbside recycling, <br />with and without the addition of park recycling service. <br />Mr. Johnson reviewed each proposal and their various proposals and comparisons <br />of each proposal from a three year or five year contract term, and with or without <br />the park component and/or cart ownership by the city. Mr. Johnson's presentation <br />included the best value scoring criteria performed without fees addressing project <br />capability, community values, value added for each company, performance re- <br />views; and then review adding their proposed fees and average scores. <br />Mr. Johnson noted maximum points resulting for each company and their shifts <br />when adding various components. <br />Mr. Johnson addressed cart ownership for their initial purchase price and invest- <br />ment by the city, and with a ten-year cart life, the addition of a CIP item for pur- <br />chase of replacement carts after that point, and needed reserves to facilitate that <br />replacement cost. <br />Mr. Johnson reviewed the various proposal scenarios for each firm for the various <br />services they proposed, including service frequency, cart ownership, contract <br />term, curbside collection, and multi-family collection costs, revenue share if any <br />based on 2015 known data and any potential costs to the city in not meeting the <br />commodity price compared to processing costs, and their total annual collection <br />costs per firm and per proposal within those four firms. In concluding the top <br />firms based on all criteria was 1) Eureka Recycling followed by 2) Republic. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.