Laserfiche WebLink
Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 6 -November 24, 2009 <br />Credit funds {MVHS) that alone is $450,000 for 2010. Mr. Schwartz noted that <br />these are just a few of the larger items creating competition for funds in the 2010 <br />budget. <br />Commissioner VanderwaIl requested that Mr. Schwartz provide the PWET <br />Commissioners with an electronic copy of the 2010 proposed budget sorted by <br />department; opining that comparison of the individual and composite City <br />Council rankings would be good discussion items before the next joint City <br />Council/PWET Commission annual meeting. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that he would provide that breakdown via e-mail. <br />6. Additional Solid Waste Collection Information <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had prepared no additional information for <br />tonight's meeting, but sought direction on the`next step. <br />Discussion among Commissioners and staff included whether the Commission <br />felt it had received sufficient research and. comparison information to-date from <br />staff to facilitate their decision-making; assumptions of the MPCA report <br />referenced by the hauler at the October PWET Commission meeting; "boogey" <br />tires on trucks and distribution of the load on the wheels and how much of a <br />difference that made related to damage to roads or if this was simply used to meet <br />weight requirements and stay below design capacity of a roadway; and similar <br />torque effects to pavement friction with braking to stop a mass being stopped <br />whether additional axles were used or not. <br />Commissioner.., Vanderwall opined that sufficient information-gathering had <br />occurred, and that now that information needed to be quantified with the PWET <br />Commission working an a proposal to improve conditions in the community. <br />Further discussion included whether the body was ready to begin working on <br />preparing an outline. of a proposal to be publicized to receive hauler and public <br />comment to allow drafting a more formal proposal. <br />Commissioner Gjerdingen opined that, in order for others to understand the <br />benefit of organized waste disposal, they needed to be provided as much <br />information as possible to see the rationale of such a proposal. <br />Commissioner Vanderwall opined that the public could follow discussion by <br />viewing the PWET Commission meetings; and that the next step would be to get <br />their involvement and comments, allowing the PWET Commission to respond to <br />their comments; but further opined that, while recognizing the need to encourage <br />participation, a dialogue was needed with a broader portion of the population. <br />Chair DeBenedet asked staff to draft an outline of a proposed plan as to how to <br />proceed, allowing the PWET Commission to kick ideas back and forth for further <br />