My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024_1022_PWETC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2024
>
2024_1022_PWETC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2024 3:45:16 PM
Creation date
10/21/2024 3:41:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/22/2024
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.
/
78
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
126 <br />127 Member Mueller indicated she was curious about what the City is collecting for <br />128 this and what it is looking at for fees. She noted she was trying to figure out what <br />129 the City was looking at for a yearly rate versus the revenue as a community, what <br />130 everyone is contributing to the pool, and how that shakes out. <br />131 <br />132 Mr. Freihammer explained that the City has been planning for carts to generate a <br />133 little more revenue than expenditures. The City was shooting for an additional <br />134 $40,000 in revenue. If this goes through, the rates will be lower, and the rates will <br />135 be able to go down, but the City will have to buy the carts, which will hurt the <br />136 City's cash balance. <br />137 <br />138 The Commission discussed awarding the best value bid to the City Council with <br />139 staff and a recommendation. <br />140 <br />141 Member Mueller indicated she was all about saving money but struggled with this. <br />142 She explained that the City needed to know how they impact families and <br />143 businesses. She explained she was working with exceptions to what these <br />144 proposers would collect. She explained how residents may have difficulty <br />145 understanding what is recyclable and not, which may discourage them from <br />146 recycling. She thought there would need to be additional education done because <br />147 the general public does not understand what is recyclable and what is not versus <br />148 what the vendor has a market for versus what is recyclable. <br />149 <br />150 Mr. Freihammer indicated that the proposer could accept the recyclable items, but <br />151 this might also increase the costs, so it would need to be negotiated. <br />152 <br />153 Member Mueller felt that the Commission needed that information before a <br />154 recommendation could be made to the City Council. <br />155 <br />156 Mr. Freihammer reviewed the process before the City Council would vote on this. <br />157 <br />158 Chair Ficek offered public comment, but no one came forward. <br />159 <br />160 The Commission discussed and deliberated on the recommendation for the City <br />161 Council. <br />162 <br />163 Motion <br />164 Member Fergus moved, Member Cicha seconded, to recommend that the City <br />165 Council approve proposer 4; the expanded materials are a requirement, and <br />166 the term is three years. City -owned carts also include the composition study <br />167 listed in the RFP and are pending the price increase compared to <br />168 the proposer's bid. <br />169 <br />170 Ayes:7 <br />171 Nays: 0 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />Page 6 of 78 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.