My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-09-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
202x
>
2024
>
2024-09-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/23/2024 11:58:04 AM
Creation date
10/23/2024 11:57:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/24/2024
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.
/
5
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
Member Mueller indicated she was curious about what the City is collecting for <br />this and what it is looking at for fees. She noted she was trying to figure out what <br />the City was looking at for a yearly rate versus the revenue as a community, what <br />everyone is contributing to the pool, and how that shakes out. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the City has been planning for carts to generate a <br />little more revenue than expenditures. The City was shooting for an additional <br />$40,000 in revenue. If this goes through, the rates will be lower, and the rates will <br />be able to go down, but the City will have to buy the carts, which will hurt the <br />City's cash balance. <br />The Commission discussed awarding the best value bid to the City Council with <br />staff and a recommendation. <br />Member Mueller indicated she was all about saving money but struggled with this. <br />She explained that the City needed to know how they impact families and <br />businesses. She explained she was working with exceptions to what these <br />proposers would collect. She explained how residents may have difficulty <br />understanding what is recyclable and not, which may discourage them from <br />recycling. She thought there would need to be additional education done because <br />the general public does not understand what is recyclable and what is not versus <br />what the vendor has a market for versus what is recyclable. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that the proposer could accept the recyclable items, but <br />this might also increase the costs, so it would need to be negotiated. <br />Member Mueller felt that the Commission needed that information before a <br />recommendation could be made to the City Council. <br />Mr. Freihammer reviewed the process before the City Council would vote on this. <br />Chair Ficek offered public comment, but no one came forward. <br />The Commission discussed and deliberated on the recommendation for the City <br />Council. <br />Motion <br />Member Fergus moved, Member Cicha seconded, to recommend that the City <br />Council approve proposer 4; the expanded materials are a requirement, and <br />the term is three years. City -owned carts also include the composition study <br />listed in the RFP and are pending the price increase compared to <br />the proposer's bid. <br />Ayes: 7 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.