►
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/134174?handle=93C551B719D24CE7AE8961A2FBA1B2FC
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/134173?handle=7731941FA00B4CEEAAB151BF743A5F5A
1. Call to Order & Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
February 3, 2022
4. Recognition of Public Comment
Recognition of Public Comment Recognition of Public Comment Recognition of Public Comment is an opportunity for the public to address The Organized Residential Waste & Recycling Committee. There i...
3. Old Business
Administrative Fee Memo
City Services Summary
5. New Business
Review Citizen Survey Results
Recommendation to City Council
6. Chairperson's Choice
7. Committee Member's Choice
8. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/134174?handle=93C551B719D24CE7AE8961A2FBA1B2FC
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/134173?handle=7731941FA00B4CEEAAB151BF743A5F5A
A
A
D
F
A
A
C
C
Most
recycling
single
stream
is
placed
in
landfills
due
to
breakage
and
contamination
and
requiring
each
household
to
pay
for
recycling
will
double
the
number
of
trucks
on
the
street
as
recycling
requires
a
separate
type
of
truck
stopping
at
each
house
on
each
street
will
increase
gas
usage
and
pollution.
If
this
is
a
reason,
because
the
stopping
and
starting
at
each
house
increases
the
time
on
the
street
and
is
known
to
increase
gas,
many
of
us
do
recycle
intelligently,
which
means
not
paying
for
recycling
that
doesn't
happen.
C
There
are
numerous
items
that
no
trash
collector
will
pick
up
for
recycling,
but
there
are
a
number
of
places
we
can
go
and
we
can
accomplish
a
lot
more
recycling
by
learning
about
these
companies.
One
is
the
alliance
center
or
ridwell,
and
they
do
take
these
common
items
fairly.
You
know
fairly
extensively.
C
A
C
I
understood
that
from
some
neighbors
at
the
early
part
of
the
survey
when
it
went
out
there
was
there
was
not
a
request
for
a
zip
code,
and
yet
when
I
took
it
and
that's
kind
of
a
related
question
it
you
had
stated
that
it
was
going
to
be
cut
off
on
the
14th,
and
yet
people
were
still
accessing
it
and
I
was
able
to
access
it.
I
think
it
was
like
the
18th
or
19th.
C
C
C
So
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
with
regard
to
this
proposal,
we're
now
all
of
a
sudden
as
citizens
going
to
be
able
to
tell
the
trash
hauling
company
what
we
want
when
it
was
very
arbitrary
and
over
the
last,
probably
five
or
six
years
when
the
services
started
deciding
they
didn't
want
to
pick
up
in
the
alley.
We
had
no
choice
and
we
were
told
we
would
lose
our
service
and
then
had
to
find
another
carrier.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
that's
going
to
be
addressed.
I
think
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
A
A
A
Since
there's
useful
information
of
what
they've
asked,
you
know
some
of
those
questions
I'll
go
ahead
and
respond,
you
know
based
on
facts
around
those
and
if
anyone
else
on
the
committee
wants
to
add
to
that
just
raise
your
hand.
As
far
as
the
question
about
the
fees,
my
understanding
is
that
the
difference
from
the
about
two
dollar
admin
fee
to
the
total
fees
listed
as
possible
cost
would
be
going
directly
to
the
hauler,
the
survey
per
citizen,
that
the
surveys
were
not
tied
to
citizens
in
any
technical
way.
A
Technically,
anyone
could
have
filled
out
the
survey
from
anywhere
as
many
times
as
they
wanted.
There
was
nothing
to
stop
people
from
filling
out
the
survey
over
and
over.
There
was
nothing
to
stop
people
who
are
not
households
in
inglewood
from
filling
out
the
survey.
So
that's
something
that
you
know
we
just
that.
A
It
was
requested
that
ali's
service
be
provided
or
alley
or
curb
at
the
household
discretion,
for
waste
and
for
recycling,
although
neither
of
the
proposals
satisfied
that-
and
that
was
in
the
the
details
about
that-
were
in
the
description
in
the
beginning
of
the
survey
and
I'm
sure
if
you
have
more
questions
about
that,
that's
all
in
the
talk
and
trash
details
and
in
our
meeting
details
and
director
d'andrea
would
probably-
or
if
you
send
emails
to
her.
She
can
answer
those
directly
as
well.
A
If
there's
anything,
that's
not
clear,
let's
close
the
unless
anyone
else
from
the
public
raise
their
hand,
nope
all
right,
we'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
move
into
our
old
business.
In
our
last
meeting
we
didn't
get
to
where
the
administrative
fee
memo
and
the
city
services
summaries
documents
that
had
been
included.
So
we've
got
those
here
to
review
those.
A
B
E
Great
thank
you
appreciate
that
chairperson
green
good
to
be
with
you
tonight,
and
I
I
will
just
be
on
for
a
bit,
but
thank
you
for
the
courtesy
to
make
a
few
comments.
First
of
all,
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
all
of
you
who
have
been
serving
on
this
committee
for
many
many
months.
You
know
it's
a
lot
of
time
out
of
your
schedule,
it's
a
lot
of
effort,
and
I
know
that
all
of
you
have
worked
really
really
hard.
E
I've
read
a
lot
of
the
notes.
I've
listened
to
a
couple
of
meetings
and
I'm
just
really
appreciate
the
spirit
in
which
you
are
trying
to
come
to
consensus,
or
at
least
a
recommendation.
You
know
this
is
a
difficult
issue.
It's
one
that
the
council,
I
think
strategically
and
correctly
made
sure
that
we
had
representation
from
both
sides,
both
kind
of
for
and
against.
E
If
you
will
on
single
hauler
and
made
sure
that
we
had
representation
from
folks
on
the
committee-
and
so
you
know,
while
that
makes
it
more
difficult,
sometimes
I
think
it's
really
what
makes
you
know
the
process
be
credible
and
successful,
and
so
I
just
really
appreciate
that.
You've
done
that
you
know.
The
other
issue
is
you've
been
meeting
during
covet.
E
You've
been
almost
entirely,
if
not
entirely
remote
from
for
most
of
this
time,
and
that's
really
hard,
you
know
not
to
be
face
to
face
not
to
see
each
other
not
to
get
those
non-verbals,
but
I
really
appreciate
that
you've
been
able
to
stick
with
it.
Those
of
you
that
are
on
the
call-
and
just
thank
you
for
your
service
just
wanted
to
also
update
you
on
the
fact
that
council
has
asked
for
this
to
be
on
the
april
18th
meeting.
E
So
we
would
like
to
have
a
recommendation
from
you
all
no
later
than
april
11th.
That
is
to
let
us
get
that
information
into
the
agenda
packet,
which
has
to
go
out
on
the
preceding
week
of
the
council
meeting,
and
so
we
really
are
on
a
pretty
short
deadline
to
get
that
april.
11Th
deadline
met,
so
we
can
get
your
recommendation
if
you
will-
and
I
and
I'd
just
like
to
make
a
comment
on
that,
we
know
there's
not
going
to
be
consensus.
We've
we've
worked
on.
E
E
If,
for
you
know,
sometimes
that's
called
a
minority
report,
and
so
I
think
that
would
be
a
really
great
thing
to
have
for
city
council
to
have
both
a
recommendation
plus,
potentially
you
know
a
dissenting
memo
or
paper
that
we
kind
of
explain
why
you
know
folks
may
not
feel
the
way
that
the
majority
does
so
we're
really
thankful
again
for
your
service
on
that.
Finally,
I
just
would
encourage
you
all
finish.
Strong
you're,
almost
there,
you
know
no
matter
what
council
decides
to
do.
E
E
F
A
F
A
All
right,
I
would
like
to
not
take
up
more
time
on
this,
so
please
just
speak
up
when
you
need
to.
Let
me
know
that
your
hand
is
raised
because
it's
not
happening.
We've
already
had
a
whole
bunch
of
time
be
taken
up,
and
unfortunately,
some
of
what
was
just
I
personally
in
response
to
what
city
manager
lewis
just
said.
I
would
like
to
reject
this
pro
against
boiling
down
without
any
nuance
perspective.
A
The
as
far
as
I
know,
and
I
read
all
of
the
bios
of
everyone-
I
mean.
Certainly
some
of
the
people
who
are
on
this
committee
have
from
the
beginning,
regardless
of
cost
service
levels,
what
citizens
want
or
not
have
been
for
going
to
single
hauler
regardless
of
details,
but
I
know
that
several
of
us
have
cared
about
the
nuance
of
what
that
means
and
what
those
terms
are,
and
it's
not
just
for
or
against.
I'm
certainly
not
just
four
against
I've
been
very
clear
all
along
that,
it's
all
about.
If
we
were
to.
A
If
the
city
was
to
do
this,
it
should
be
utilizing
the
leverage
of
such
a
large
contract
to
get
a
deal.
That's
a
good
deal
for
the
citizens
that
include
the
terms
that
the
citizens
care
about.
So
I
don't
see
this
as
just
a
four
against.
I
see
it
as
a
very
nuanced
important
topic
that
matters
to
a
large
portion
of
the
citizens
of
england,
all
right
director
d'andrea.
Let's
please
address
the
admin
fee.
Memo.
G
I
related
I
was
hoping
to
see
if
given
city
manager,
lewis's
comments,
if
we
could
try
to
make
this
our
last
meeting
for
this
group
in
order
to
get
our
recommendations
to
city
council
before
their
study
session
and
if
so,
I'd
like
to
see
if
we
could
make
the
discussion
of
this
memo
and
the
survey
results
rather
than
short.
So
we
can
still
have
plenty
of
time
to
discuss
our
final
recommendations.
A
A
You
know
pushing
to
a
completion
with
without
taking
the
time
to
do
our
best
on
behalf
of
what
citizens
care
about,
and
but
we've
also
done
everything
we
could
to
move
this
along
as
quick
as
we
can,
and
I'm
going
to
continue
to
do
that.
But
this
I
believe
there
were
questions
about
it,
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
and
address
it
since
we
didn't
get
to
it
last
time.
B
All
right,
so,
if
you
recall,
I
had
prepared
a
memo,
we
were
always
talking
about
the
two
dollars
approximate
per
month
per
per
residence,
and
this
was
this.
Memo
originally
showed
my
calculation
and
what
I've
done
here
is
update.
That,
because
I
think,
in
talking
with
internally
with
other
staff,
is
that
we
don't
think
that
we
need
to
at
least
to
start
with
do
this
part-time
code
enforcement
officer.
B
So
it
still
shows
a
full-time
program
coordinator
and
one
full-time
billing
specialist,
and
you
see
the
cost
there,
but
I've
crossed
out
the
code
enforcement
person
and
then
we
would
still
have
and
as
well
as
the
vehicles.
So
those
are
the
personnel
costs
from
up
above
that
we
crossed
out
the
vehicle
that
would
be
needed
for
that
code
enforcement
person
and
we
kept
in
the
communications,
because
that
was
a
cost
that
would
be
on
the
city.
B
B
A
I
had
a
question
about
why
we
would
need
a
full-time
billing
specialist.
I
mean
I
understand
that
in
the
lead-up
there
would
be
some
work
to
integrate.
You
know
you
know,
should
this
go
forward
and
we
have
a
hauler
there's
going
to
be
integration,
work
to
get
everything
automated,
but
once
it's
automated
and
and
tied
in,
I
really
don't
understand
why
I
mean
really.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
the
intent
is
that
in
talking
with
our
utility
billing
staff
right
now
is
that
they
cannot
handle
that
those
additional
calls,
and
so
we
would
need
another
billing
specialist
to
handle
just
the
calls
related
to
garbage.
Obviously
they'd
be
integrated
and
cross-trained
to
answer
any
questions,
but
they
do
not
feel
that
they
could
accommodate
that
even
with
a
part-time
person
that
we
would
need
a
full-time
billing
specialist
to
handle
those
a
number
of
calls.
B
We
may
even
need
more,
you
know
as
we
ramp
up
so
yes,
the
calls
are
supposed
to
go
to
to
directly
to
the
hauler,
but
as
we
know,
people
just
tend
to
call
the
city.
So
it's
a
city
program,
I'm
gonna,
call
the
city
and
then
we
need
to
then
still
direct
them
to
that.
If
it's
a
non-billing
question
to
the
waste
haulers,
so
there
is
a
fair
amount
of
that
as
well,
so
we
still
feel
that
both
full-time
positions
are
required.
F
B
B
A
A
B
C
B
B
I
I
think
that
we
as
a
committee
or
you
you
all
as
a
committee,
decided
not
to
do
that-
that
you
to
get
a
basically
a
base
price
where
it
would
be
the
most
efficient
possible,
was
to
have
everybody,
opt-in
or
be
part
of
the
service.
The
first
year
at
least
try
it
out
and
then
for
the
second
year,
be
able
to
opt
out.
But
that
is
not
a
requirement
per
se
by
state
statute
or
anything.
A
That
was
what
went
into
the
rfp.
Remember
brown
is
that
the
structure
of
the
opt-out
was
that
nobody
could
opt
out
for
the
first
year
and
that
they
would
be
able
to
after
the
first
year
and
then
what
we
got
in
the
two
proposals
was
waste
management
accepted
that,
with
their
caveat
of
what
was
it,
if,
if
10
percent
opt
out,
then
they
can
renegotiate.
A
G
F
A
Okay,
thank
you,
director,
d'andrea,
on
that
all
right.
So
now
we've
got
the
survey
which
we've
all
one
thing
I
don't
know
if
this
was
obvious
to
everybody
in
the
agenda.
There's
two
links
for
the
survey
results.
One
is
the
full
excel
spreadsheet,
which
includes
all
of
the
write-in
information,
since
so
many
of
the
questions
allowed
for
people
to
specify,
please
explains
or
others,
etc.
A
If
you
do,
click
on
that,
it'll
pull
an
excel
file
and
you
can
see
what
director
d'andrea
has
on
the
screen
right
now,
which
is
the
the
full
content
of
the
survey
responses
and
then,
like
you,
can
see
there
what
she
has
on
the
screen.
One
line
across
there
is
one
response
and
then
there's
a
column
for
every
question
or
write-in,
and
then
just
as
a
note
for
anyone
wanting
to
like
peruse
this
data,
those
drop
downs
at
the
column
headers,
you
can
sort
all
of
the
responses.
A
I
mean
I
have
some
points
that
I
would
like
to
address
and
I'd
like
to
give
everyone
a
chance
to
note
anything
that
they
would
like
to
point
out,
and
then
I
think
what
we
can
do
is
start
to
construct
the
points
that
we
might
want
to
communicate
to
city
council
in
our
recommendation
or
if
someone
else
has
a
suggest,
a
different
suggestion
on
how
to
address
this.
I'm
certainly
open
to
that.
A
A
G
Yeah
things
I
was
leaning
towards
opening
up
the
discussion
to
the
committee
for
overall
reactions
and
impressions
of
the
citizen
survey,
especially
compared
to
our
previous
impressions.
What
dumped
out
at
us
what
we
think
is
especially
notable
and
then
I
have
a
handful
of
suggestions
for
recommendations
that
maybe
we
could
consider
as
a
package
as
we
go
along,
and
I
put
those
in
a
slide.
So
maybe,
when
we
get
there,
I
might
be
allowed
to
screen
share
a
single
slide
with
some
of
those
recommendation.
Ideas.
A
Okay,
I
think
that
that's
a
good
idea,
the
first
part
of
that.
Let's
start
with
that
anything.
Anyone
wants
to
point
out
as
observations
from
the
results
of
the
survey
or,
if
anyone
wants
to
like
specifically
look
at
a
part
of
the
survey
and-
and
you
know
recognize
that
and
talk
about
that-
we
could
do
that
too,
rather
than
like
going
through
the
whole
thing,
because
we
do
have,
you
know
somewhat
limited
time
to
try
and
accomplish
what
city
council
is
asking
for.
E
Yeah,
thank
you
yeah.
So
I
took
a
look
at
the
survey
and
it
looks
like,
and
maybe
that's
where
we
should
start
are
we
a
majority
that
is
leaning
towards
this,
or
a
majority
of
that
is
against
this
right
and
from
what
I'm
seeing
is
a
slight
majority
that
is
moving
towards
a
single
hauler.
So
I
think
that
that
would
be
the
primary
point
that
we
would
want
to
start
this
conversation
and
then
kind
of
whittle
down
from
there.
A
We
want
to
move
that's
interesting.
My
impression
was
the
opposite
from
the
data
that
I
mean.
We
got
61.9
very
satisfied
with
current
provider.
61.9
vary
or
satisfied
with
current
provider.
63
currently
have
yard
waste
included
and
that's
not
even
an
option
on
either
of
the
proposals
that
didn't
satisfy
the
rfp.
A
That's
not
what
I
got
of
the
guest
book
entries.
Three
were
four.
As
stated:
eight
were
against
period,
seven
were
against
unless
terms
improved,
two
were
uneligible,
since
they
were
apartment,
complex
people
and
if
you
go
through
all
of
the
entries,
there's
a
massive
concern
about
the
the
ali
service
and
why
that's
so
important-
and
we
know
that
one
of
the
proposals
satisfies
that
and
one
doesn't
and
then
we
had
62.7
percent
pushing
for
wanting
it
on
the
ballot.
G
G
G
Stop
there
stop
there
if
there
was
an
option
to
opt
out
of
the
program
with
the
2
per
month,
administrative
fee.
Would
you
be
supportive
of
a
change
to
one
service
provider
for
the
city,
and
I
get?
I
can't
see
the
numbers,
the
the
the
legend
there,
but
I
think
it
was
almost
41
in
the
green
in
favor
and
a
22
that
would
be
neutral.
So,
okay
with
it.
A
A
F
E
A
F
A
You
know
pretty
more
evenly
as
well
as
with
a
lot
of
nuance.
That
matters
I
mean,
there's
huge
need
for
ali
service,
as
we
always
knew.
You
know.
One
thing
I
was
disappointed
about.
The
survey
is
that
I
received
the
postcard:
are
not
the
survey
so
much,
but
the
public
input.
I
received
the
postcard
on
a
monday.
A
Okay
and
then,
and
then
so
after
receiving
the
postcard
on
a
monday,
the
the
two
public
input
meetings
were
the
following
day
for
the
virtual
one
and
then
two
days
later
on
thursday
for
the
in-person
one,
and
there
were
only
13
people
there,
four
of
whom
were
current
or
former
members
of
this
committee,
and
I
even
talked
to
some
of
the
people
who
did
attend
and
some
of
them
didn't
even
know,
except
that
they're
someone
who
used
to
work
for
the
city.
Let
them
know
so
I
you
know
the.
A
I
was
disappointed
in
the
the
notice
for
public
input,
especially
considering
the
when
we
started
this
project.
You
know
before
our
committee
even
convened
and
the
city
had
three
public
meetings.
Each
one
of
those
was
attended
by
hundreds
of
people.
We
know
that
the
citizens
care
about
this
and
they,
I
think
that
they
were
not
necessarily
informed
in
time
to
participate
in
the
new
public
forums.
Although
I'm
glad
director
d'andrea
that
you
extended
the
time
on
the
survey
for
people
to
be
able
to
respond
to
that
longer.
Remember
brown.
F
B
Well,
just
to
clarify,
so
I
said
that
we
did
record
the
march
8th
one
and
we
weren't
going
to
record
that
for
the
march
10th,
because
it
was
basically
the
same
same
content
that
was
going
to
be
shared
in
my
powerpoint
presentation
and
then
business
support.
Specialist
chavez
did
take
note
of
all
the
questions
that
were
raised
in
the
at
the
march
10th
meeting,
and
then
that
was
combined.
The
questions
from
both
sessions
were
combined
together
in
an
faq
which
is
on
the
inglewood
engaged
website.
Now.
F
F
A
B
Yeah
we
can.
Yes,
you
mean,
like
the
icompass
portal,
where
you
guys
would
go
to
look
for
our
citizen
committee
meetings.
Yeah
yeah.
We
typically
don't
do
public
public
meetings
on
those,
so
we
do
have
our
board
and
commissions
are
on
there
city
council
meetings,
obviously,
but
we
typically
do
not
put
public
meetings
on
there.
That's
something
we
can
consider
but
like.
If
we
had
a
project
meeting-
let's
say
an
informational
meeting,
for
you
know
a
roadway
project.
We
would
not
put
it
on
icompass.
Typically,
it
would
go
on.
A
C
A
G
I
think
that's
a
great
suggestion
for
the
future
and
definitely
something
the
city
should
do
and
for
our
purposes
here
I
given
that
we
cannot
delay
it
and
have
another
public
meeting
with
another
month
of
notice.
It
doesn't
really
seem
to
be
an
option,
and,
given
that
I
think
we
had
really
broad
participation
in
the
survey,
we
should
still
go
forward
with
the
what
we
got,
what
information
we
got
in
the
survey
and
and
when
you
asked
a
little
bit
earlier
about
our
just
our
initial
impressions.
G
Some
things
I
noted
down
is
that
it's
clear
the
community
is
divided
on
this,
both
philosophically
and
in
terms
of
the
details.
So
I
think
it's
good.
We
have
a
representation
on
the
committee
in
that
respect
to
dive
into
the
details.
Like
you
were
saying
before
chair
green,
I
got
that
alley.
Pickup
is
very
important
for
some
residents,
but
not
all
which
I
think
is
probably
almost
directly
correlated
to
how
difficult
it
is
for
certain
residents
to
get
up
in
to
their
street
as
opposed
to
to
their
alley.
G
If
they
have
a
very
steep
driveway
or
a
lot
of
stairs,
then
they
probably
would
mark
ali
services
very
important,
and
if
it's
you
know
six
one
half
that
does
half
doesn't
the
other.
They
probably
don't
care.
So
that
was
my
impression
of
ali
service,
which
I
think
might
feed
into
our
recommendations,
and
we
could
perhaps
be
more
nuanced
there.
I
got,
which
we
all
probably
knew
from
the
very
beginning.
G
That
cost
is
a
very
important
concern
to
residents,
and
that
made
me
think
we'll
need
to
take
a
closer
look
at
our
recommendations
on
price
reduction
and
simplicity.
We
know
that
we
can't
get
everything
we
want.
We
kind
of
put
our
gigantic
wish
list
into
the
rfp,
but
we
might
need
to
trim
it
down
in
order
to
meet
that
demand
for
a
price
reduction
yeah,
so
costs
seem
to
be
the
highest
concern,
followed
by
service,
reliability
and
then
and
then
yard
waste
people
had
a
whole
mix
of
prices
that
they're
paying.
G
That
was
just
all
over
the
board.
A
large
item
pickup
seemed
to
be
fairly
split.
Half
and
half.
I
think
about
a
little
over
50
percent
said
it
was
important
to
them.
As
far
as
the
providers,
the
first
provider
was
split
down
the
middle,
the
second
provider
had
the
majority
fine
with
it.
I
guess
again
that
depends
where
you
put
the
neutral.
G
A
G
And
I
was
kind
of
putting
neutral
in
my
head
as
okay
with
it,
meaning
they
wouldn't
throw
a
fit
about
it.
But
we
could
debate
that
and
that's
as
opposed
to
the
next
question,
which
got
wider
support
again.
If
you
count
the
neutral
and
I
took
that
difference
to
be
the
importance
of
ali
service,
because
that
was
the
main
difference
between
them.
But
that
is
just
my
impression-
and
I
realized
that
you
could
interpret
this
in
a
lot
of
different
ways.
A
G
A
A
G
Okay
and
then
the
last
thing
I
I
noted
just
in
general
impressions
was
a
continued
demand
for
apartment
recycling
and
a
lot
of
comments
still
coming
in
about
composting
and
we've
known
all
those
all
along.
So
then,
again,
when
I
kind
of
summarized
my
and
my
initial
impressions,
I
got
that
we'd
need
to
focus
on
simplicity
and
price
reduction.
If
this
is
a
program
that
we
want
to
recommend
the
city
pursue.
A
A
A
A
Sh
people
talked
about
difficulty
moving
bins,
not
wanting
to
have
the
stink
of
trash
or
recycling
in
front
of
their
house.
They
can't.
Obviously
we
all
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
parts
of
inglewood
where
you
can't
even
get
the
bins
from
the
front
to
the
back.
Unless
you
go
all
the
way
to
the
end
of
the
block
down
the
side
and
then
up
the
alley
so
difficult
terrain.
A
lot
of
mentions
of
elderly
disability.
A
E
I
had
a
couple
of
points
on
the
cost
comment.
I
think
one
separately
when
we're
doing
a
comparison
of
the
cost
of
these
other
communities,
it's
good
to
think
about
when
they
sign
their
contracts
and
the
terms
that
they
put
in
right,
because
a
lot
of
these
were
established,
pre-pandemic,
which
they're
in
a
completely
different
environment
and
they're
under
completely
different
variables
that
are
put
into
those
those
calculations
and
they
were
probably
locked
into
a
max
increase
right
and
in
addition
to
that,
vice
chairman
borman
tis
the
season.
E
E
If
I
was
to
cancel
service,
they
would
not
take
new
customers
on
so
that
that
tells
me
that
they
are
already
on
a
labor
shortage
and
so
we're
gonna
probably
look
at
service
issues
that
are
happening
there.
But
along
with
dane,
I
think,
we're
gonna
see
a
lot
of
people
have
cost
increases,
regardless
of
who
they're
with.
F
Well,
I
just
recently
heard
from
an
acquaintance
is
not
in
my
district,
but
she
just
signed
a
two-year
contract
with
waste
services
just
like
two
weeks
ago
for
seventeen
dollars
a
month.
So
I
don't
know
why
people's
costs
are
going
up
when
you
can
sign
with
waste
services
and
get
better
service
for
seventeen
dollars
a
month.
F
F
F
B
Yeah
thanks
for
pointing
that
out,
remember
brown.
It's
so
important.
We
put
it
in
twice,
it
was
an
oversight
and
when
we
put
the
the
bullets
in
so
there
were
two
options:
two
bullets
or
two
what
they
call
radio
buttons
that
you
could
pick
for
for
cost.
So
you
know
some
people
may
have
tapped
it
twice.
Some
may
have
only
tapped
it
once,
but
I
think
whether
you
combine
them
or
even
individually,
even
if
we
only
look
at
the
orange
one,
it's
it's.
F
B
F
G
I
noticed
the
same
thing
about
cost
being
repeated
and
I
don't
think
you
can
add
those
two
numbers
together,
because
some
people
might
have
marked
one.
Some
people
might
have
marked
the
other,
but
some
people
might
have
marked
both
so
mathematically.
We
can't
really
discern
that
right
off
the
bat,
although
we
can
still
take
the
general
point.
That
cost
is
the
most
important
issue.
A
Yeah
that
I
mean
that's
that's
clear:
if
it
wasn't,
if
they
were
two
that
weren't
the
tallest,
then
that
would
be
more
important
data
to
like
figure
out
what
happened.
But
I
agree
I
mean
it's,
it's
clear.
That
cost
is
the
number
one
issue,
even
if
we
don't
combine
those
or
we
take
a
third
of
it
or
whatever
the
actual
you
know
difference
was
so
we
all
know,
cost
has
been
identified
as
the
most
important
and
then
in
regard
to
the
what
people
are
paying.
A
I
mean
remember
brown's
point
is
pretty
strong,
the
the
fact
is,
you
can
call
away
services
right
now
and
get
17
trash
or
22
dollar
trash
and
recycling.
My
neighbor
just
signed
up
as
well,
so
that
is
available
and
it's
provided
by
a
waste
service
and
for
people
to
not.
You
know,
switch
to
that
make
that
phone
call
that's
choosing
to
not
get
a.
A
You
know
as
good
a
deal
as
as
is
available,
so
I
mean
people
can
choose
to
pay
more
than
they
need
to
for
things,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
the
people
who
do
care
about
cost,
which
we
see
is
the
number
one
issue
based
on
the
respondents
that
you
know
they
should
be.
You
know,
pushed
into
something:
that's
not
a
reasonable
cost,
because
a
lot
of
people
don't
seem
to
care
about
cost
by
paying.
A
For
you
know,
services
that
are
overpriced
and
not
just
switching,
which
is
what
you
get
when
you
have
competition
and
when
you
have
new
competition
moving
in
like
little
dumpsters
is
adding.
You
know
more
support
to
inglewood
right
now,
all
right,
any
other
points
that
anyone
wants
to
bring
up
point
out
regarding
the
overall
survey
results.
G
A
Well,
I
mean,
obviously
this
is
anecdotal,
but
one
of
the
things
we've
had
anecdotally
was
former
member
fraser's
anecdote
about
how
miserable
it
was
to
deal
with
waste
management
for
his
wife,
who
spent
like
like
a
cumulative
like
three
hours
on
the
phone
with
them,
and
then
I'm
I'm
someone
who's
had
waste
services
for
two
years
now
and
when
I've
called
they've
answered
and
I've
never
had
a
missed
pickup,
I've
never
had
a
missed
anything.
It's
alley
service
for
waste
and
curb
for
recycling
waste
management
includes
bundled
branches,
includes
bags
of
yard
waste.
A
B
E
A
A
Yeah
35.3
said
they
currently
have
them,
and
then
I
I
said
it
earlier,
but
I
think
this
is
really
important.
63
of
respondents
have
included
at
no
extra
cost
yard
waste,
and
that
was
the
third
top
concern
by
everyone
as
well
and
that's
not
included
in
either
of
the
proposals
as
they
stand
all
right.
A
I
would
suggest
that
before
we
go
to
your
presentation,
conglomeration
remember
brinker,
let's
give
everyone
a
chance
to
like
bring
up
points
that
we
might
want
to
include
in
what
we
communicate
to
city
council.
You
know
I
mean
let's,
let's
just
talk
about
it
for
a
minute.
So
what
I
think
you
know
like
what
I
would
suggest
is
that
we
say
you
know
we
we
tell
make
sure
they're
clear
on
the
story.
A
We
determined
that
the
rfp
that
was
put
out
didn't
represent
the
concerns
of
citizens
based
on
the
input
from
the
first
round
of
citizen
input,
and
we
recommended
that
city
council
reject
the
original
rfp.
Let
us
make
a
new
one.
We
went
through
that.
We,
as
we
all
know
you
know,
battled
it
out
to
get
what
ended
up
in
the
rfp.
A
Some
things
didn't
get
in
there
that
you
know,
I
still
think
are
really
important,
but
you
know
was
outvoted
and,
and
now
we've
seen
that
you
know
it
is
an
important
thing.
It's
the
number
three
most
important
thing,
the
yard
waste
thing
and
then
we've
we
found
out
that
the
proposals
that
came
back
don't
satisfy
the
the
requirements
of
the
terms
that
we
came
to,
which
you
know
obviously
includes
what
we
came
up
with,
and
so
you
know
one
reason
that
I
don't
see.
The
pressure
that
has
been
expressed
upon
us.
A
A
You
know
reliability,
which
I
think
falls
into
the
the
customer
service
aspects
that
we've
included
in
the
rfp,
which
those
were
not
necessarily
there's
some
nuance
missing
in
their
in
their
proposals,
but
we
all
know
what
what
we
included
and
the
the
you
know.
The
primary
thing
about
citizens
should
be
able
to
submit
a
request
for
whatever
they
need
without
having
to
wait
on
a
phone
or
wait
for
a
chat
or
wait
actively
wait.
A
A
A
We
have
to
have
an
opt-out
after
the
first
year
as
an
option
and
suggest
the
structure
that
waste
management
said
with
the
you
know
the
10.
If
10
opt
out,
they
can
renegotiate
and
and
and
use
the
pat,
the
power
of
the
weight
of
the
leverage
of
such
a
large
contract
to
negotiate
with
the
companies
directly
to
get
what
citizens
care
about.
I
mean
that's
the
gist
of
what
I
would
like
to
recommend
to
city
council.
F
Chair
green,
go
ahead.
Remember
sorry,
I
can't
raise
my
hand,
but
I
guess
when
we
do
different
screens,
the
raised
hand
goes
off
my
screen,
but
my
perspective
is
that
we
are
not
fulfilling
what
most
of
the
citizens
want
here
with
this
rfp
number
one
is
price:
why
would
you
pay
the
price
that
we
currently
are?
These
trash
haulers
are
giving
us
when
you
can
get
it
for
much
cheaper,
it's
cheaper
and
it's
better
service.
F
The
second
point
is
people
wanted
alley
service?
Are
we
going
to
give
the
to
them?
I
don't
know
I
doesn't
look
like
it.
Unless
we
go
with
republic
for
all
allies
and
then
the
third
piece
of
information
that
we've
received
is
that
people
do
want
to
be
able
to
put
out
bags
for
their
leaves
their
branches,
whatever
the
case
may
be,
and
we're
not
fulfilling
that
either
with
this
rfp.
F
D
Yeah,
so
you
know
like,
I
still
think
it's
worthwhile
for
us
to
move
forward
with
at
least
a
recommendation
of
city
council
for
them
to
negotiate
kind
of.
Like
you
talked
about
chair
green,
I
do
still
think
there's
got
to
be
a
way
for
the
city
to
negotiate
on
the
cost
and
I
do
think
that's
important,
but
I
also
think
that
the
recycling
is
is
an
important
thing
for
everybody
to
get
behind,
and
I
think
you
know
I
don't
know.
D
I
looked
at
the
service,
reliability
and
the
customer
service
as
something
that
I
hope
this
rfp
would
really
satisfy,
especially
with
going
with
a
single
hauler,
because
hopefully
that
way
they
well.
They
have
penalties.
Obviously,
if
they
don't
satisfy
the
customer
service
and
the
reliability,
and
so
I
think
that's
another
big
push
towards
at
least
recommending
it
to
council
and
I
definitely
understand
the
yard
waste
and
again,
I
think,
maybe
that's
something
that
again.
We
should
allow
city
staff
and
council
to
negotiate
with
the
haulers.
D
E
G
G
G
G
Okay,
I
assume
you
can
all
see
that
this
is
a
lot
of
details
and
this
is
all
open
for
negotiation.
But
I
was
putting
down
what
I
thought
would
maybe
be
the
most
reasonable
for
what
I
we
could
move
forward
with
and
recommend
to
city
council-
and
I
was
focusing,
like
I
said
earlier-
on
cost
reduction
and
simplicity.
G
So
I
I
agree
with
basically
what
all
of
you
said
that
we
need
to
renegotiate
with
the
haulers,
given
that
neither
one
responded
to
the
terms
of
the
rfp,
and
so
I
was
suggesting,
first
of
all,
that
we
requested
staff
negotiate
with
the
haulers
for
the
following
conditions
and
then
move
forward
with
whichever
one
could
meet
these
and
these.
These
can
be
tweaked
as
long
as
we
don't
take
10
more
meetings
to
do
it.
G
But
I
think
they'd
have
to
meet
the
price
of
25
or
under
per
household
per
month,
including
the
city
admin
fee,
and
that's
pegged
to
the
price
that
waste
services
currently
has
on
their
website
for
trash
plus
recycle,
and
we
already
voted
on
recycling
being
included
at
no
additional
cost
annual
price
increase
of
three
percent
or
the
consumer
price
index.
Whichever
is
lower
a
small
opt-out
fee
after
the
first
year
I,
like
director
andrea,
said
a
1.72
to
the
city.
I
rounded
up
to
1.75.
G
G
G
So
that's
something
we
hadn't
discussed
but
could
be
worth
considering
so
there
I
thought
would
be
the
bare
minimum
terms
that
someone
would
have
to
agree
to
for
our
recommendations
and
then
the
rest
cut
out
large
item
pickup
reluctantly,
but
I
was
looking
towards
cost
savings
and
I
think
that
that's
reasonable
to
consider
the
yard
waste
swap
there
and
related
to
that.
I
was
thinking.
Perhaps
we
could
say
no
extra
trash
bags
outside
the
bin
without
paying
additional
bag
fee.
G
But
that's
for
trash
not
including
yard
waste
for
yard
waste.
I
might
suggest
we
defer
that
to
the
staff
and
to
city
council
to
decide,
given
our
con
contentious
and
contention
and
our
inability
to
reach
a
full
agreement
there
on
on
yard
waste.
So
basically
say
our
committee
couldn't
reach
agreement
on
that
and
let
the
staff
and
city
council
decide
that
I
would
also
cut
out
city
wide
yard
waste
events
from
the
from
the
proposal,
given
that
we
could
hopefully
try
to
continue
how
they
were
already
provided.
G
However,
they
were
funded
through
the
previous
kab
events.
Maybe
a
yard
waste
drop
off
site
like
some
other
cities
have
opt-in
compost.
We
talked
about
so,
in
other
words,
trying
to
find
some
additional
options
for
for
yard
waste
the
we
could
see
if
they
could
exempt
low-income
households
from
the
admin
fee,
and
I
liked
member
brown's
point
earlier
about
attempting
to
reduce
the
staffing
needs
through
it
in
order
to
reduce
the
admin
fees.
G
We
already
voted
on
recommending
that
city
council
require
multi-family
properties
and
sorry,
I'm
missing
a
word
there.
It's
supposed
to
say
commercial
properties
to
offer
recycling
to
tenants.
We
can't
mandate
a
single
provider,
but
city
council
could
have
an
ordinance
that
they
have
to
at
least
offer
recycling
and
then
recommend
the
city
council
vote
on
vista
that
they
can
tweak
and
adjust
the
program
as
needed.
So
we
don't
get
something
that
that
has
a
design
flaw.
That's
set
in
stone,
okay,
so
sorry
to
dominate
the
floor
right
there.
G
But
I
thought
I
wanted
to
just
get
all
my
thoughts
out
on
paper
because
sometimes
it's
hard
to
just
discuss
those
orally
and
keep
track
of.
What's
what
and
I
think
the
overall
top
item
seems
to
be
where
I
was
hearing
the
rest
of
you
guys
lead
about
this
could
be
possible
if
we
get
the
right
terms
and
given
that
neither
provider
met
the
exact
terms
of
the
rfp,
we
do
still
have
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
them
one-on-one
to
try
to
meet
some
of
these
suggestions.
A
Thank
you,
member
rinker,
that's
I
appreciate
all
of
what
you
put
together
there.
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
respond
first,
since
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up
overall,
I
like
where
you're
going
with
this.
I
don't
like
the
the
way
that
you've
defined
ally
service,
because
I
can
already
think
of
even
just
within
a
couple
blocks
of
me,
people
that
need
it
that
don't
have
steps
or
necessarily
a
steep
driveway
grade,
et
cetera.
A
A
A
Okay,
thank
you,
but
my
my
my
point
is
ali's
service
for
people
who
are
disabled,
elderly,
etc
makes
it
so
they
don't
even
have
to
move
the
the
bins
they
can
leave
them
at
the
alley
and
take
their
trash
and
recycling
out
to
them,
which
is
massively
repeatedly
communicated
in
the
comments
of
the
survey
results
over
and
over,
and
over
tons
of
people
talked
about
that.
So
I
and
I
so
I
think
we
should
just
make
ali
service
upon
request
for
any
household
waste
recycling.
A
As
part
of
the
recommendation.
We
know
it's
possible
republic
could
do
it,
so
you
know
why
not
put
that
in
what
they're
negotiating
for
and
then
I
would
also
argue
to
try
to
include
yard
waste
because,
as
it
stands
right
now,
it
was
including
the
large
item
pickup,
which
is
less
important
to
more
people,
whereas
yard
waste
is
currently
included
by
63
of
the
respondents
and
really
you
know,
and
the
third
most
important
thing.
So
I
I
mean
that's
what
I
would
say.
We
recommend
a
city
council.
A
I
would
be
in
support
of
this
if
it
said
ali
service
across
the
board
and
included
yard
waste,
and
we
recommend
a
city
council
to
negotiate
those
top
points
because
it's
satisf,
it
gets
rid
of
the
need
for
pay
as
you
throw
for
almost
all
instances
of
someone
who's
concerned
about
the
size
of
the
bins,
because
in
most
of
those
cases
it
is
going
to
be
the
older
houses
with
the
alleys
and
then
we're
taking
into
account
what
people
have
asked
for
and
I'll
stop
talking.
Remember
our
vice
chair,
borman.
D
Yeah,
I
just
had
one
comment
about
the
recycling
out
in
the
alleyways
I
you
know
this
is
probably
a
side
sort
of
thing,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
really
liked,
I
can't
remember
which
it
was.
I
think
it
might
have
been
waste
management,
but
they
had
the
smart
trucks
that
actually
could
help
detect
contamination
in
the
recycling
and
because
they
can't
do
the
automated
ones
where
they
have
the
ability
to
kind
of
use
that
camera.
D
G
Thanks,
can
I
make
a
couple
of
responses
to
the
points
you
made?
I
think
you
were
mostly
talking
about
ali's
service
and
yard
waste
on
ali
service.
I
think
we
could
craft
this
in
a
broad
enough
way.
The
people
that
really
need
help
service
could
get
it
and
the
rest
would
be
pushed
towards
curb
service,
and
the
reason
I
think
that's
worth
considering
is
a
the
huge
wear
and
tear
that
trucks
have
on
our
dirt
alleys.
G
There
are
dirt
and
gravel
alleys
in
particular,
and
second,
the
huge
efficiencies
both
in
terms
of
time
and
labor,
that
the
trash
companies
prove
to
us
with
having
more
efficient
trucks
and
by
more
efficient.
I
mean
in
this
case
faster
without
a
person
having
to
get
out
and
that
I
think
leads
to
the
price
reductions
that
we're
going
to
need.
That
was
something
that
we
all
got
an
education
on
from
the
trash
haulers.
They
can
move
a
lot
faster
and
they
can
service
all
the
houses
with
a
lot
less
labor.
G
The
more
people
are
that
are
at
the
curb
compared
to
the
alley,
so
just
because
they
can
do
it
doesn't
can
do
the
alley
doesn't
mean
that
that's
the
best
approach
overall
for
the
cities
or
sorry
for
for
the
city.
So
I
think
that
that's
worth
still
considering
allowing
ali
service
for
those
who
need
it
and
pushing
people
towards
curb
service
who,
who
don't
really
need
it
and
maybe
there's
a
way
that
we
could
craft
this
large
enough,
this
this
bullet
to
encompass
any
additional
scenarios
that
I
hadn't
considered
there
yard
waste.
G
If
I
can
be
honest,
I'm
sick
to
death
of
our
discussions
on
yard
waste,
I'm
not
a
drinker,
but
I
want
to
go
grab
a
bottle
of
wine
every
time
yard
works
comes
up
because
it
feels
like
it's
half
of
our
meetings.
So
I
really
don't
want
to
con
continue
talking
about
it.
I
know
that
it's
very
important
to
you.
I've
I've
got
that
message
loud
and
clear.
That's
why?
I
still
think
that
I
I
didn't
say
it
shouldn't
be
included.
G
I
just
said
that
that's
something
we
defer
to
the
staff
and
the
city
council
to
decide
and
the
main
point
against
yard
waste
is
that
it
has
a
potential
to
increase
costs.
So
here
I
was
looking
for
ways
to
reduce
the
cost,
and
I
do
absolutely
at
your
point
that
it
is
a
current
service
offered
by
some
of
the
providers,
and
that
is
an
important
service
to
some
residents
so
that
those
points
I've
got
loud
and
clear.
F
Yeah,
thank
you,
member
brinker.
You
apparently
have
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
into
this
recommendation.
My
idea
is
that
I
don't
particularly
like
just
the
96
gallon
bins.
That's
going
to
be
hard
on
some
people,
including
myself.
If
I
have
to
go
to
the
curb,
because
I
do
have
a
lot
of
steps
in
my
front
yard
plus
I
have
heels
so
I'm
not
in
favor
of
just
the
96
gallon
bins.
F
Perhaps
if
I
received
alley
service,
but
I
the
the
problem
with
me
is
I'm
a
single
person,
I
don't
need
a
96
gallon
and
32.
Gallon
is
even
way
too
much
for
me
for
the
trash
I
generate.
So
I
would
ask
that
we
go
ahead
and
what
we
did
in
the
rfp.
We
asked
for
a
32
gallon
bin
and
yes,
I
know
we
spoken
about
yard
waste
ad
nauseum.
F
F
E
G
E
A
E
A
E
D
E
So
I'm
separating
these
into
two
separate
issues
right.
We
can
talk
about
what
goes
into
the
proposed
recommendation
list
separately
than
if
we
are
going
to
move
forward
at
all.
So
the
first
motion
is
just
to
address.
If
we're
going
to
recommend
to
city
council
to
consider
negotiations
or
to
consider
a
single
hauler.
A
Okay,
I
would
rather
be
able
to
vote
yes
on
it
and
the
only
way
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
do
that
is
if
it's
got
the
nuance
in
it.
So
but
that's
fine,
you
can
make
your
motion
and
then
we
can
vote
on
it.
So
it's
already
been
so
the
motion
is
not
mentioning
the
the
nuance
at
all:
it's
just
whether
we
are
recommending
to
city
council
to
con
continue
considering
single
hauler
or
not
without
any
nuance
right,
correct.
A
E
D
F
F
E
A
A
A
A
G
G
D
D
I
guess
I'll
put
that
as
a
motion.
Maybe
I
motioned
that
we
put
the
first
three
items
in
this
proposed
recommendation
list:
the
price
25
or
under
recycling
at
no
additional
cost
and
annual
price
increases
of
three
percent
or
water
sewer
trash
cpi.
Whichever
is
lower
into
our
recommendations
for
city
council
to
consider.
A
A
D
F
E
A
All
right
so
I'll
make
a
motion
on
that.
I'm
I
move
that
we
add.
Let's
just
do
them
one
at
a
time
now,
on
these
motions,
see
where
we
end
up.
I
I
move
that
aft,
so
we
make
the
fourth
one
ali's
alley
or
curb
service
for
any
anyone
who
you
know
at
what.
As
the
rfp
stated,
you
know,
per
household
choice,
al
ali
service
for
waste
and
recycling
per
household
choice.
C
A
D
A
Okay,
so,
just
to
be
clear,
remember
brown.
It's
already
been
voted
that
we're
recommending
to
city
council
that
they
move
forward
with
considering
a
single
hauler
service
and
now
we're
since
that's
going
forward,
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
we're
voting
on
what
is
going
to
be
included
in
that
in
our
recommendation
for
their
negotiation.
A
F
A
Right,
do
you,
I
would
say:
okay,
you
made
the
motion.
Is
there
a
second
yeah
I'll,
second,
that,
okay,
so
that
can?
Can
you
first
finish
that
line
the
way
that
I
set
it
and
get
rid
of
the
alternative
part
since
that's
already
been
voted
on
ali
or
curb
service
for
waste
and
recycling
based
on
household
choice,.
A
A
Okay
and
then
you
have
a
motion
for
an
alternative.
Do
you
want
to
do
that
right
now,
or
do
you
want
to
come
up
with
do
alternatives
after
you
can
keep
your
motion
and
we
already
have
a
second
too?
So
I
guess,
let's
vote
miss
chavez.
Will
you
please
take
a
vote
and
what
this
is
is
the
language
that
member
brinker
has
on
that.
Second
slide:
whether
we
include
that
as
an
alternate
consideration
in
our
proposal
to
city
council.
A
D
F
A
A
A
G
D
A
All
right
I'll
make
a
motion
for
that.
So
I
propose
that
or
I
make
a
motion
that
in
our
proposed
recommendation
we
recommend
city
council
negotiate
for
basically
the
waste
management
recommended
structure
for
opt-out,
so
the
first
year
all
citizens
would
be
required
to
participate,
and
after
the
first
year
they
could
opt
out
only
having
to
pay
the
admin
fee
of
you
know
about
two
dollars
and
then,
if
more
than
10
percent
opted
out,
then
it
would
trigger
a
negotiation.
A
A
A
D
A
Thank
you,
miss
chavez,
so
discussion.
Member
brown
since
you've
brought
up
many
times
the
pay
as
you
throw
a
model
with
different
size,
bins
if
we're
recommending
that
they
negotiate
to
get
the
alley
service.
Is
that
still
as
much
of
an
important
thing,
because
for
so
many
people
who
have
alley
they
could
just
leave
their
bin
at
the
alley
and
take
their
trash
out
to
it
and
not
have
to
move
it
around.
F
I
I'm
only
speaking
for
myself,
but
yes,
I
believe
a
96
gallon
is
too
much
for
some
people
to
handle,
and
I
have
an
incline
in
my
driveway
and
for
me
it's
way
too
much
a
96
gallon
ban,
because
I
just
don't
generate
that
much
trash.
So
yes,
it
is
important
to
me
anyway,
chair
green,
that
we
are
at
least
able
I'm
at
least
able
to
get
a
32
gallon
and
well.
Do
you
want
to
make.
A
A
motion
and
have
us
consider
that
whether
city
council
should
try
to
negotiate
for
different
sizes,
because
I
mean
I
I
get
it.
I
don't
produce
hardly
any
trash
myself
either.
I
never
fill
up
the
96
gallon
trash,
but
it's
not.
It
doesn't
matter
to
me
if
I
can
leave
it
on
the
alley
and
just
throw
my
trash
in
it.
F
A
G
Yeah,
I
thought
I
just
wanted
to
repeat
the
pros
and
cons
that
I
was
hearing
if
we
include
32
and
96
gallon
bins,
it's
easier
for
some
residents,
especially
disabled
or
elderly,
to
manage
the
smaller
size.
It's
it
it's
easier
for
households
that
don't
generate
a
lot
of
trash.
We
were
hoping
that
it
would
be
an
incentive
to
have
less
trash
and
that
you'd
get
a
lower
cost.
That
didn't
turn
out
to
be
the
case
really,
so
those
are
the
pros
for
having
for
allowing
both
sizes.
A
G
They
just
say
96
gallon,
that's
what
you
get
so
in
that
sense,
people
are
kind
of
used
to
it
and
it's
what
the
providers
are
offering
and
then
I
guess
the
other
reason
for
96
is
just
simplicity,
just
put
just
plain
simplicity,
but
I
think
those
pros
and
cons
kind
of
even
them
out.
So
I'm
hoping
to
remember
brown's
motion.
A
F
G
F
F
A
A
F
A
D
C
A
Thank
you
all
right,
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
recommend
that,
for
the
proposed
recommendation
for
remember,
brinker's,
favorite
yard
waste
include
yard
waste
based
on
the
current
definition
of
you
know
what
what
is
included
biowaste
services
and
waste
management.
Right
now,
which
is,
I
forget,
exactly
it's
like
four
bundles
of
branches
and
five
bags
each
time.
A
A
It's
the
definition
out
of
the
rfp,
it's
whatever
we
had
in
the
rfp.
So
it's
just
it's
put
it's
swapping
out
large
item
for
this,
because
I
think
this
is
cheaper
and
we've
seen
that
it's
what
more
people
care
about
and
that's
intended.
My
motion
is
to
put
that
under
proposed
recommendation
at
the
top,
not
as
additional.
A
That
was
the
different
thing
with
the
whole
large
item
pickup
twice
a
year,
10
bags
stuff,
I'm
I'm
trying
to
not
make
it
more
than
what
people
currently
have
it.
This
is
that,
what's
in
the
rfp
is
based
on
what
is
currently
included
by
waste
services
and
waste
management,
I
think
it's
per
pickup,
four
bundles.
A
A
D
A
D
F
F
A
Okay,
thank
you,
yeah,
and
you
could
even
put
in
there
just
as
defined
in
the
rfp,
because,
except
for
the
I'm
fine
with
the
we
made
it
the
four
and
four
I
I
we
don't
need
to
go
up
to
whatever
it
was
yeah
all
right.
Does
anyone
else
want
to
make
any
more
or
remember,
brown.
You
got
your
hand
raised
again.
F
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
I
just
wanted
you
know.
I
know
we've
already
passed
that
motion,
but
the
32
and
the
96
gallon
bin
size.
You
know
waste
management
says
they
have
a
process
for
any
kind
of
container,
because
they've
bought
out
other
service
provider
containers.
So
I
don't
see
why
that
that
should
present
at
least
waste
management.
A
problem,
that's
my
comment.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
we
we're
obviously
over
time,
but
I'm
very
happy
with
where
we're
you
know.
I
appreciate
everyone's
participation
in
getting
us
to
where
we're
at.
Is
there
anything
else
anyone
wants
to
propose
to
try
to
get
into
our
main
points,
to
recommend
the
city
council
for
their
renegotiation.
A
A
G
A
A
E
F
It
says
consider
exempting
low-income
households
from
administrative
fee.
I
mean
that's
a
dollar
72
cents
shouldn't
we
put
something
in
there
about
possibly
senior
rates
or
military
rates,
or
something
like
that
I
mean
1.72
is
really
nothing
considering
how
much
money
they're
paying
overall
for
this
single
trash,
hauler.
A
G
A
G
C
A
F
F
G
A
A
A
G
A
B
Yes,
I
don't
know
if
city
manager
lewis
clarified
that,
but
we
have
had
a
request
from
the
city
council
to
have.
The
committee
attend
the
april
11th
study
session.
So
they
requested
a
study
session
in
advance
of
the
april
18th
actual
city
council
meeting
where
a
decision
might
be
made
and
so
on
april
11th.
They
would
have
a
study
session
which
normally,
as
some
of
you
know,
usually
they
don't
take
public
testimony.
But
as
the
committee
they've
requested
that
you
be
part
of
that,
we're
still
figuring
out
the
logistics.
A
Okay
and
then
so,
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
have
all
of
this
that
we
just
successfully
came
up
with
together
in
a
unified
front,
which
I'm
really
impressed.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
all
of
your
work
on
everything
we've
done
throughout
all
this.
I
know
it
hasn't
been
easy,
but
I
really
appreciate
everyone's
input
and
participation,
and
I
think
we
can
present
this
together
in
a
really
good
way
that
does
represent
what
we've
learned
from
citizens.
Remember
brown,.
F
F
F
A
A
A
F
A
F
A
A
Oh,
that's
me,
I'm
sorry,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
everyone.
This
has
been
a
challenging
situation
for
all
of
us
at
times,
certainly
for
me,
but
I
really
appreciate
getting
to
know
all
of
you
as
we've
worked
through
this
and
all
of
your
efforts
and
all
of
your
concern
and
care,
and
I
it's
it's.
I
appreciate
all
of
you.
Thank
you.
F
Well,
I
would
like
to
say
thank
you
to
you
too,
chair
green
you've,
put
in
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
and
to
everyone
else
on
this
committee.
I'd
like
to
say
thank
you,
it's
been
different
working
with
everybody,
and
I
know
we've
all
got
our
viewpoints
and
that
I
think
overall,
we've
done
pretty
well,
so
thank
you.
F
D
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
everybody
too.
I'm
actually
pretty
impressed.
We
came
around
really
pretty
great
tonight
to
a
pretty
good
consensus
and
I
really
commend
member
brinker
for
coming
up
with
these
recommendations
that
we
kind
of
loosely
based
everything
off
of
she
really
kicked.
You
know
did
a
great
service
to
this
evening
and
thanks
to
director
d'andrea
for
everything
as
well
and
you
chair,
green.
Thank
you.
A
B
Yes,
you
all
have
been
wonderful,
I'll,
say
that,
because
again,
there's
this
public
process
at
work
right
and
and
if
we
all
agreed
on
everything
there
wouldn't
be
any
dissension.
But
that's
the
the
public
process
and
I
think
you've
all
come
together.
Well,
and
I
appreciate
your
time
and
it's
it's
unimaginable
when
we
started
out
that
it
would
take
this
long.
But
I
I
hope
that
you
all
feel
that
the
process
was
open
and
that
your
voices
were
heard
and
that
we
helped
along
the
way
to
assist
you
in
getting
to
this
point.