My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0412
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0412
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2010 1:47:50 PM
Creation date
5/18/2010 1:47:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/12/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, April 12, 2010 <br />Page 19 <br />Councilmember Ihlan reviewed the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Comprehensive <br />Plan documents (Land Use Section -Policy 1.7) supporting her position; and the <br />rights and objectives of the City as a property owner, and impacts to be analyzed. <br />b. Discuss the Public Works Environment and Transportation (PWET) Com- <br />mission's Role in the Recycling Request for Proposal (RFP) <br />Mayor Klausing noted that the purpose of this discussion was as a follow-up to <br />Councilmember Roe's request for involvement by the PWET Commission in the <br />pending Recycling Provider Request for Proposals process. <br />City Manager Bill Malinen provided staff's perspective with respect to the RFP <br />process and staff's intent to develop that RFP using best value approach methods, <br />with the ultimate goal in recycling to divert materials from landfills and get them <br />into the manufacturing process. Mr. Malinen advised that it was not intended un- <br />der that best value method to provide specifics, but to allow respondents to pro- <br />vide their best value approach for ranking by the evaluation team. Mr. Malinen <br />suggested that commission members could be involved in those panels. <br />Councilmember Roe sought to clarify the actual charge to the PWET Commission <br />from the City Council in the process, not necessarily in writing the RFP itself; and <br />suggested several areas for their involvement, including: <br />1) PWET having the opportunity to offer their input into generation of the RFP, <br />such as their thoughts about evaluation criteria; and/or <br />2) What the City Council is looking for, such as a technical review from their <br />areas of expertise; and/or <br />3) Their voluntary participation in the review process as bidding goes forward. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned how appropriate it was for advisory commissions to <br />be involved in drafting RFP's, suggesting that staff's expertise seemed more ap- <br />propriate. <br />Councilmember Roe suggested that involving commissioners in evaluating the <br />RFP's was appropriate, and clarified that he was not suggesting that the commis- <br />sion be involved in writing the RFP itself, but providing their perspective on the <br />document drafted by staff, allowing for an additional chance for review and <br />comment. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that she didn't see a downside in seeking their in- <br />volvement and their perspective, given their interest in such issues. <br />Discussion ensued regarding involvement of advisory commissions in their tradi- <br />tional roles for professional expertise and citizen input. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.