Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culver agreed that was a good idea, and noted his only concern was one of <br /> timing for that input prior to providing a recommendation to the City Council. <br /> Member Lenz clarified the implementation portion could be done after award and <br /> once the contractor was known. Member Lenz noted the phase in might not be <br /> completed until the summer of 2017 depending on usage; but noted the need was <br /> there to discuss the frequency of pick-up and other components and logistics for <br /> phasing and considering each park and pathway as well as the number of bins or <br /> pick-up frequency. <br /> Mr. Culver noted staff would only make a recommendation to the City Council <br /> but it would be at their discretion to make a final determination. At this point, <br /> Mr. Culver advised he would recommend initiating negotiations with Proposers 1 <br /> and 3 including multi-family homes and park pick-up with phased in <br /> implementation, but reiterated that could affect costs for either proposal. Mr. <br /> Culver suggested staff could return to the July PWETC after the chosen proposer <br /> addressed specific issues and questions, and final consideration at the City <br /> Council level in August. Mr. Culver reiterated the differences in Proposers 1 and <br /> 3 could change dramatically based on whether parks could be phased in over the <br /> term of the contract or within a one year timeframe that could affect costs. Mr. <br /> Culver noted that even changing a small percentage in one area could change the <br /> best value review results. Under those circumstances, Mr. Culver advised he <br /> would not propose going to the City Council with a final recommendation on July <br /> 11�h. <br /> Without objection, and on behalf of the PWETC, Chair Cihacek suggested <br /> staff proceed to the City Council for authorization to initiate negotiations <br /> with the preferred best value vendor. However, Chair Cihacek asked that no <br /> award decision was made until the PWETC was able to obtain clarification <br /> from those identified vendors to clarify the apparent gap in service for pick- <br /> up at multi-family units, and park implementation by phasing, as per <br /> tonight's discussion. <br /> Mr. Culver clarified that at this point in the process, vendors could not be asked to <br /> change their proposals for pricing, noting with tonight's presentation and <br /> discussion, the proposals were now public information. Specific to the vendor <br /> question related to an apparent gap in service, Mr. Culver noted staff could advise <br /> the vendor that this was not explained well in the RFP narrative. Also, Mr. <br /> Culver noted staff could seek better understanding from vendors as to impacts for <br /> phasing of park pick-up programs and suggestions for how the city may wish that <br /> phasing done (e.g. high density parks versus low density parks and what <br /> timeframes would work best). Mr. Culver noted this clarification would also <br /> allow time for staff to consult with the Parks & Recreation Department and <br /> advisory commission for their feedback. <br /> 7. City Council Joint Meeting Review <br /> Page 18 of 19 <br />