Laserfiche WebLink
345 Chair Wozniak opened up public comment. Seeing no one, public comment was <br />346 closed. He indicated that he has heard comments against revenue sharing and in <br />347 support of a 3.5-year contract. He indicated he would support continuation of the <br />348 current arrangement with bi-weekly pickup for single family and weekly pickup for <br />349 multi -family, which is base proposal 131, and Al has the lowest cost. <br />350 <br />351 Member Cicha was in favor of proposer 2, IA. He noted this is lowest cost with <br />352 proposer two scoring higher on a lot of the scoring systems that have been set up to <br />353 help guide this decision. He thought the 3.5 term is right. <br />354 <br />355 Motion <br />356 Member Cicha moved, Member Joyce seconded, to recommend the City <br />357 Council approve proposer 2 with proposal A-1 with a 3.5-year term. <br />358 <br />359 Vice Chair Ficek noted on the ranking system proposer 2 did have the higher score <br />360 on the City's diversity, equity and inclusion which helped bring them to the top. <br />361 He also thought this recommendation and motion made sense from that standpoint. <br />362 <br />363 Chair Wozniak concurred. He wondered if there was anything in the contract that <br />364 would allow the City to cancel the contract during the 3.5-year term. <br />365 <br />366 Mr. Culver indicated there was not without cost. The City would have to identify <br />367 something that the proposer is not doing per contract and give them an opportunity <br />368 to remedy and if they do not then the contract could be cancelled. <br />369 <br />370 Chair Wozniak indicated he cannot support revenue sharing at $75/ton so that <br />371 would take that off the table for him. If the City were able to negotiate a lower <br />372 processing fee it might be something worth looking at. He would also support <br />373 proposal A-1. <br />374 <br />375 Ayes:5 <br />376 Nays:0 <br />377 Motion carried. <br />378 <br />379 Mr. Culver asked if the Commission, given what is known now, support an increase <br />380 in the recycling fee so that the City can build up capital so that in three years the <br />381 City can buy their own carts and theoretically, at that point, have some more <br />382 competitive pricing. <br />383 <br />384 Vice Chair Ficek indicated given the two proposals the City had varied in how they <br />385 approached the City owned cart; he did not know if he saw an advantage in it. If <br />386 they stayed with the same company and proposals would have come in the same <br />387 way the City would have had the advantage this round but given that it has not been <br />388 consistent, he did not know if that were the way he would go with this. <br />389 <br />Page 9 of 10 <br />