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
253 Chair Wozniak asked Mr. Culver to expand a little bit on how the City planned on <br />254 scoring the community and racial equity values. <br />255 <br />256 Member Cicha indicated he would support the fifteen percent DEI within the <br />257 scoring because he thought it was really important to show that the City is <br />258 committed to including this with everything that is done in Roseville. He was <br />259 curious about the previous scoring which had the community values at ten percent <br />260 and has been boosted up to thirty percent, which is a pretty big jump, so he was <br />261 curious what the thought process was behind that. <br />262 <br />263 Mr. Culver explained the price was dropped down from forty to twenty-five <br />264 percent, which is a pretty significant drop of fifteen percent and the past <br />265 performance of other cities was dropped down from fifteen to five percent. Staff <br />266 figured it was unlikely there will be a negative survey. He thought last time there <br />267 were four or five proposals and there are really that many providers in the area that <br />268 will provide the City with service and for the most part all do a pretty good job. <br />269 Staff did not see a lot of variation in the past performance side and even the value <br />270 added, there was very little that the contractors were doing extra. He saw a lot of <br />271 the value-added stuff shifting to the community value side of it. <br />272 <br />273 6. Items for Next Meeting — February 23, 2021 <br />274 Discussion ensued regarding the February PWETC agenda: <br />275 Sustainability Super Meeting #2/PiE Update <br />276 <br />277 March Meeting Agenda <br />278 Railroad Quite Zone Study <br />279 <br />280 Chair Wozniak wondered if the City Council will have a joint meeting with the <br />281 PWETC because he noticed the City Council had a joint meeting with the Park and <br />282 Rees Commission. <br />283 <br />284 Mr. Culver indicated the Park and Rec Commission had a couple of pretty pertinent <br />285 topics that needed Council feedback so that was kind of the driving force for the <br />286 joint meeting. He would imagine the next PWETC meeting would be in June or <br />287 July. <br />288 <br />289 7. Adjourn <br />290 <br />291 Motion <br />292 Member Joyce moved, Member Hammer seconded, adjournment of the <br />293 meeting at approximately 8:18 p.m. <br />294 <br />295 Ayes:6 <br />296 Nays:0 <br />297 Motion carried. <br />Page 7 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.