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 19 <br />Councilmember McGehee noted the recent community survey asked about organ- <br />ic collection interest, with not much enthusiasm shown. However, Councilmem- <br />ber McGehee noted the interest in park recycling. Councilmember McGehee stat- <br />ed her support for a five year contract with Eureka Recycling, with park collection <br />and vendor-owned and stored carts. Councilmember McGehee agreed staff had <br />done a great job with this difficult RFP, and recognized the huge amount of staff <br />time it required, but noted this was also the most thorough job she'd seen done in <br />a long time. Councilmember McGehee noted that staff time required was part of <br />her rationale in seeking a longer term contract. <br />For future reference, Councilmember McGehee suggested that the reducing of <br />community values percentage and increasing added value percentage was likely <br />not the position of many in the community who strongly favor of recycling. <br />Knowing where the end product market was for recycling is an important compo- <br />nent to the community. <br />Related to process, Councilmember Laliberte asked about the "blue bag" concept <br />for organic collection, and whether or not that was provide by trash haulers as <br />well as recycling vendors. <br />Mr. Culver advised that some vendors offered that as part of general waste collec- <br />tion, and offered to further research that option and provide further clarification <br />on the city's website or via the city newsletter at the suggestion of Councilmem- <br />ber Laliberte. <br />Councilmember Etten agreed with Councilmember McGehee's stated preference; <br />and agreed that recycling in parks was an important and obvious next step for the <br />city to take. Noting the dramatic differences among bids for park service and re- <br />cycling, Councilmember Etten asked staff to further elabarate on the highlights of <br />each vendor related specifically to that service. <br />Mr. Culver noted some vendors offered to provide dumpsters in the park parking <br />lot, and other vendors offered rolling carts to the parking lots, while other vendors <br />offered to walk up to the park buildings and roll carts out to parking lots or use a <br />smaller type vehicles to traverse trails for less impact. Mr. Culver noted three of <br />the four vendors were offering to go out on pathways and service them according- <br />ly. Mr. Culver noted that staff would need to determine contamination issues go- <br />ing forward, and dependent on which park and the type of contamination found. <br />Mr. Culver noted the goal was to eliminate park debris, or to recycle materials <br />versus having them littering the parks and trails. <br />To further expand, Mr. Culver noted previous Public Works, Environment and <br />Transportation Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission discussions <br />about the park component and how it was going to work realistically. Mr. Culver <br />advised that staff recognized the pricing for this component and logistics of such a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.