My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-09-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-09-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2010 9:38:52 AM
Creation date
9/24/2010 9:28:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/28/2010
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.
/
33
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
Ms. Bloom noted their favorable impression of the City's public education efforts, <br />and expressed interest in staff's work to assist citizens in establishing rain <br />gardens, and encouraged use of rain barrels. Ms. Bloom noted that the MPCA <br />also reviewed the City's hazardous spill response preparation, with the Fire <br />Department also included in the audit. <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would share the written report with the PWET <br />Commission upon receipt from the MPCA. <br />5. Follow up from meeting with City Council <br />Members briefly discussed follow-up items from the recent annual joint meeting <br />with the City Council; with Chair DeBenedet noting that no progress was made <br />to-date on including the PWET Commission in reviewing land development <br />applications. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted the City Council's suggestion for the PWET Commission to <br />meet jointly with other Commissions (e.g. Planning Commission and/or Parks and <br />Recreation Commission) to share roles. <br />Tonight's discussion focused on the list developed by members of various <br />community values they felt should be incorporated in an RFP for recycling <br />services; to proceed in ranking scores based on their importance related to those <br />fol <br />ategories grouped together by staff based on the bullet points were as <br />^ Local Vendor <br />^ Clean, quiet <br />^ Know the size and weight of trucks and <br />their impact on streets <br />Contract <br />^ Return on Investment <br />^ Money returned to City <br />^ Flexibility in contracting <br />^ Rewards for adding value <br />^ Equipment doesn't use fossil fuel <br />(1'nnvenience <br />Easy to participate <br />Is it better to separate or co-mingle? <br />More materials ticked ub <br />Education <br />^ Frequent education of <br />residents <br />^ Community involvement <br />Page 4 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.