My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
202x
>
2021
>
2021-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2021 2:22:55 PM
Creation date
3/9/2021 2:22:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/26/2021
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Mr. Culver noted City owned carts also give them the flexibility to add the City <br />logo to the carts for a more customized look. <br />Member Spencer asked if the numbers in the REP taking into consideration three <br />different sizes of carts. If Roseville purchased carts and provided them, would there <br />be only one size available. <br />Mr. Johnson indicated staff would have to look at the different options and the cost <br />listed in the REP should be on the high side. This basically takes into consideration <br />having a buffer. <br />Chair Wozniak asked if staff is seeing a trend in cities purchasing their own <br />recycling carts. <br />Mr. Johnson thought it was the preference of each city. He explained Shoreview <br />did this in their last REP and St. Paul bought all of theirs. Maplewood decided not <br />to purchase carts after going through its REP. As of right now it is a little more <br />split of who wants carts. <br />Vice Chair Huiett indicated that regardless of who owns the cart, might there be an <br />alternative type of program where the resident and recycler have an option to <br />contribute and purchase an additional cart. She thought another cart might be <br />needed if the resident wanted to separate their recyclables by type. She wondered <br />if that option or alternative has been explored. <br />Mr. Johnson explained this has not been looked at. Currently what is done with <br />Eureka is if a resident wants another cart the resident can request one and there is <br />no cost associated with it. This is the model he had in mind but Vice Chair Huiett <br />brought up an interesting topic that he has not thought about. He noted managing <br />that would add another layer. <br />Mr. Culver explained the only problem with a resident using different carts for <br />different recycling products is that the recycling products still end up in the same <br />hopper on the truck. <br />Chair Wozniak indicated he wanted to look at the scoring slide because he had a <br />few questions about it. There has been some information brought forward about <br />scoring, diversity, equity and inclusion and he saluted staff and Philson Ibrahim <br />with Ramsey County for including this in the contract. He thought this was really <br />progressive and visionary on a number of levels. He was very interested in seeing <br />the response received from the vendors out there for this section. He was also <br />curious about how this will be scored. Given that the diversity, equity, and <br />inclusion is fifteen percent, and the community values is thirty percent so the <br />scoring will be almost half of the value of the response in this area. He thought that <br />was a lot and wondered if any of the Commissioners had concerns about how much <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.