Laserfiche WebLink
aware of those areas leaving room for improvement. Mr. Johnson opined the city <br /> and its residents were not doing a lot wrong anymore based on their recycling <br /> history and the success of the program, especially made possible by past staff <br /> efforts. <br /> To add to that, Mr. Culver noted a number of lessons had been learned throughout <br /> the program's tenure, especially growing pains when moving to single sort. Mr. <br /> Culver noted the current contractor was doing a much better job than what had <br /> initially been experience; but advised each proposer was already performing the <br /> work for one or more communities and brought that experience to the table and <br /> addressing various issues and learning lessons. Mr. Culver noted improving <br /> technology certainly was a part of that allowing more immediate communication <br /> between residents and contractors to address problem areas or concerns. <br /> However, Mr. Culver noted the need to continually push the customer interface, <br /> information and customer service aspects. <br /> Member Wozniak sought clarification that staff's recommendation would be for <br /> Proposer 3 with a three year contract including park service. <br /> Member Seigler suggested phasing in the park program, using Central Park for a <br /> start; and if found to be successful, then expanding recycling to other parks and <br /> trails by adding more carts and sites. Member Seigler spoke in support of phasing <br /> in the park program versus a full blown start, especially considering the <br /> significant cost over five years for carts located on all trails. <br /> Member Wozniak opined there were already some carts located on trails and <br /> some parks. <br /> Mr. Johnson concurred, noting the goal was to expand, depending on particular <br /> parks and paths; but offered to consider staging the park recycling component <br /> based on input from park staff on ideal placement based on their experience and <br /> usage at each park. <br /> Member Lenz noted that Central Park also had a higher level of shelters; and <br /> agreed with blitzing Central Park and its shelters and then phasing in at other <br /> parks. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding the number of trash bins at various parks compared <br /> to the number of recycling containers; with consensus of the need to work with <br /> the Parks & Recreation Department on the phase in. <br /> Member Wozniak noted the need to keep in mind that the contract proposals are <br /> based on a per pull versus estimated number of pulls; and if the park component <br /> was phased in, costs would also be less than those currently shown on the matrix. <br /> Page 15 of 19 <br />