2005_0912_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Date: 09/12/05 Item: 13 Recycling RFP Evaluation Forms From: Greg Schroeder [mailto:gregschroeder@usfamily.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8: �3 FM To: Neal Beets; Craig Klausing; Dean Maschka; Tom Kough; Amy Ihlan; Greg & Jackie Schroeder Subject: Additions to next Council Meeting Agenda for Recycling items ��aJ � � '�ai � We as a Council did not discuss the evaluation form for ranking the proposals when we reviewed the RFP. Based on my review, I do not believe it allows us to show a preference for a single stream collection system. I believe we should have that choice because the existing dual sort system as stated in the Pilot Study report has remained relatively stagnant (no increase in tonnages collected) since 1992, despite az� increased education program, changes to more frequent collection and simplified sorting. �n addition as stated in RW Beck's report "On average, the quantities collected during the pilot from single stream collection routes were greater than from dual stream routes." In addition on page 20, table 7, a comparison of the routes before to after indicates a greater an�ount (pounds of material collected) for single stream as compared to dual sort (control). Therefore, I would like to add an item to the agenda for the next Council meeting � discuss the evaluation form and to add a line for sin�le stream collection. In addition, I would like to add an item to the a�enda for the next Council meetin�to discuss who will be on the Proposal Review Committee assigned to review and anal z� details of the proposals will be. I would Iike to recommend that tl�� Proposal Review Committee be the Public Works Environmental & Transportation Commission (PWET Comn�iss�on). Further, that all proposals be sent to the PWET Commission for their evaluation, rankin�, and recommendation to the Council for the preferred �roposal. Council Member Greg Schroeder USFamilv.Net - $8.2SImo� -- Hi hsg peed- $19.991moi ---