My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_02-23_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2021
>
2021_02-23_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2021 2:33:06 PM
Creation date
3/9/2021 2:32:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/23/2021
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.
/
35
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
71 Mr. Culver explained the Council conversation was that each Youth Commission <br />72 member would be given the option to vote because there are some requirements for <br />73 voting members. <br />74 <br />75 5. Recycling RFP Discussion <br />76 Mr. Culver explained the City entered into a five-year comprehensive recycling <br />77 agreement with Eureka Recycling starting on January 1, 2017 and ending on <br />78 December 31, 2021. Staff and the PWETC initially discussed this on September <br />79 22, 2020 in order to get feedback on the 2016 Request for Proposal (RFP), and to <br />80 determine what updates would be beneficial to have a robust and equitable 2021 <br />81 RFP. He noted staff met with Ramsey County and Foth Env. several times since <br />82 September and have a draft REP for the PWETC to review and comment on. <br />83 <br />84 Mr. Johnson reviewed the recycling REP with the Commission. <br />85 <br />86 Member Joyce asked how the City would handle cart damage by vendor versus cart <br />87 damage by resident and who would be responsible for sending the carts out to <br />88 residents if the City elected City owned carts. <br />89 <br />90 Mr. Johnson explained for the initial roll out the City would have to hire a contractor <br />91 to get all of the carts out to the residents. When it comes to replacing carts, if <br />92 something is damaged or not working the service contractor would be responsible <br />93 for that. Damage information would have to be given to the City from the <br />94 contractor. <br />95 <br />96 Chair Wozniak asked how old the carts are that the City currently has. <br />97 <br />98 Mr. Johnson explained the carts are from 2014. <br />99 <br />100 Chair Wozniak thought the carts were probably halfway through their lifespan. He <br />101 wondered if there was the option of the City buying the used carts. <br />102 <br />103 Mr. Johnson indicated that staff did talk with Eureka about this possibility but <br />104 Eureka is not interested in selling the carts if they do not win the next contract. <br />105 <br />106 Mr. Johnson continued with the presentation on Recycling REP. <br />107 <br />108 Member Spencer asked what the reason the City was thinking about owning its own <br />109 carts is cost. <br />110 <br />111 Mr. Johnson explained that is one aspect. It could potentially cost less, but it is also <br />112 one more capital expense the City will have and will need to manage it as well. It <br />113 also gives the City a little more flexibility and better pricing because the City would <br />114 not need to worry about the cart roll out or swapping out carts. On the downside, <br />115 the managing and tracking of carts will be needed. <br />116 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.