My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0912_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0912_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:41:26 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:04:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
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
City Council Regular Mceting — 08/22/OS <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 35 <br />concerns that they may be unable to meet the specifications of <br />the draft RFP. Ms. Kle��next requested Council reconsideration <br />of their proposed RFP. <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn lnade st�ggestian� to various sections of the draft <br />RFP. Council taolc note of the comment regarding Section 5.07, <br />with staff detern-�inillg that there was a typographical error in the <br />last line of the section, and it should be "4.03," rather than <br />"4.02." <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn toolc issue with the City requesting �ree <br />recycling services, opining that it was not correct budgeting <br />practice nor did it allow proper accountability of various <br />departments, particularly the golf course since it operated as an <br />Enterprise Fund. <br />Mr. Kysylyczy� noted the cost of the RFP process; and opined <br />the length of �17ti ���eet:ng was indicative of poor agenda <br />management. <br />Additional Council discussion included provisions of page 44, <br />Section 10.06, C��t��side Dual Stream Bi-Weekly Collection <br />Proposal Scena io; including, revenue sharing and lower costs <br />with Co�ncilme���be�• Il�la11 suggesting language rephrasing to <br />provide for information on how processing is accomplished, <br />without detailed processing information and residual rates, in an <br />effort not to arbitrarily r�:ile people out while still allowing the <br />Council to compare different packages. Councilmember <br />Schroeder co7�currcd. <br />Staff was directed 10 111a1ce the recommended revisions before <br />issuing the R� �P anci that staff provide a revised RFP to <br />Councilmenlve�-s. <br />No formal action tal�e�� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.