WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2008

SPECIAL MEETING

8:05 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith were present. No members were absent. Others present were Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Chief Taylor, Ed Drobina, Susan Lent, Tim Giardina, Andy Rumpke, Brian Wilson, Brian Price, Todd Wielinski, Nick LaTorre, Gary Weltlich, and others.

2. SCHEDULED ITEMS:

A. Review and request for motion to recommend award of refuse collection contract. Mr. Smith stated a public hearing was held on this issue earlier this evening with comments from two residents. He stated Council members have also received a number of phone calls and e-mails on this issue. Mr. Smith stated this is one of the more important things this Committee has considered recently and it does touch every resident of the City and he did not want to minimize that. He stated the discussion would be informal and there may be interaction between the Committee members and representatives of the bidders.

Mr. Smith stated the City received four bids for this contract, one of which was much higher than the other three, so those three bids were the ones being focused on. He stated these bidders were Local Waste, Waste Management, and Rumpke. He further stated there were three options each bidder bid on with Waste Management choosing not to bid on Option 2. He stated the discussion was around more of a trash contract with an option to recycle which would lead to consideration of Option 2 or Option 3. Mr. Smith stated all Committee members have a copy of the bid sheet put together by Mr. Drobina and if you look at Option 2, trash only, Rumpke would be the low bidder with $9.19 per month, followed by Local Waste at $13.00 per month, and Waste Management did not bid. He stated for recycling, however, Rumpke was $5.57 per month, for Local Waste it was $3.99. He stated Local Waste did not have a fuel surcharge and Rumpke and Waste Management added a fuel surcharge of approximately $1.70 per month based on $4.50 per gallon. Mr. Smith stated all bids included an optional cost for carts, and a discount for seniors. Mr. Smith stated if someone should ask for Option 2, trash and recycling, the full loaded potential cost based on $4.50 per gallon of gas, Local Waste would be $16.99 and Rumpke would be $17.34. He stated all three bidders bid on Option 3 and for trash only Rumpke was $9.39, Waste Management was $11.07, and Local Waste was $13.00. He stated for recycling Local Waste was $4.45, Rumpke was $8.78, and Waste Management was $8.27. He stated if you look at trash plus recycling, adding in the fuel surcharge, for Option 3 trash and recycling the lowest bid price was Local Waste for $17.75 per month, with Rumpke at $21.35 per month, and Waste Management at $22.77 per month. He stated Option 3 trash only was Rumpke at $11.03 per month, Local Waste at $13.00 per month, and Waste Management at $13.03 per month. Mr. Smith stated he would open this issue for discussion.

Mr. Sabatino stated the way he thought this would be is that with the bid structure of Option 1, 2, and 3, the residents could choose between the three options. He stated some residents prefer the small containers while some prefer the large containers. He stated he had taken the two recycling options, added them both together and got an average for small and large and Local Waste was at $17.37, Rumpke at $19.73, and Waste Management because they only bid on one had the same $23.22. He stated that was the way he thought this was supposed to be done. Mr. Drobina stated as he recalled, Safety Committee had asked for three options. One with trash only, one with an 18-gallon bin with lid, and one with a two-wheeled cart. He stated he did not think it was requested that people would be able to pick any of the options. Mr. Smith stated he concurred with Mr. Drobina, he thought this committee would choose one. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought it was obvious and that was why they had the discussion they did so people could choose recycling or not and a large or small container. He stated if you look at it on a cost only scenario, factoring in all the options available, there is one that is the low priced bidder, one slightly more, and one that is highest. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought the whole reason for going back out to bid was to allow these options. Mr. Smith stated he thought the original Waste Management bid was with the large wheeled cart, based on every other week pick-up, and we wanted a weekly pick-up and something that was a little smaller than the large toter. Mr. Sabatino clarified that Mr. Smith was referring to the Safety Committee when he said “we,” in giving Mr. Drobina the guidance to put the bid package together. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel that was the guidance he had given him. Mr. Sabatino stated regardless, there were three competitive bids that needed to be evaluated in the context of giving the citizens what they were asking for. He stated, in his mind, the maximum choice is what they were asking for and his recommendation would be that whoever was selected, that the City be allowed to choose Option 2 or Option 3. Mrs. Sanders asked if that was possible and Mr. Smith stated that is not what the bid said. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the bid said we were only going to award one option, and Mr. Drobina stated it did not say that, but the way he read it was that we were only going to award one option. Mr. Smith stated that was what he intended, and Mrs. Sanders stated she thought that as well. Mr. Hansley stated the main change between the first bid and the second is the mandatory versus subscription for recycling. He stated all of these bids are based on opt in/opt out, so if a resident does not want to recycle they are not forced to. Mr. Sabatino stated but if they want to recycle with a small bin, and we award Option 3, that leaves them out of the picture. Mrs. Sanders inquired if someone started using the recycling and wanted another type of container, could they call and request another type. Mr. Hansley stated that would be something that the bidders would have to answer. Mr. Sabatino stated he had spoken with our law director who stated basically that unless we could prove that there was something materially wrong with the low bidder you were pretty much obligated to go with them.

Mr. Smith stated he had two questions to each of the bidders, but he had gone to the Better Business Bureau website and would request the printout from the Better Business Bureau be attached to these minutes. (Attachment 1 to these minutes)

Mr. Smith clarified with both bidders present, Waste Management and Rumpke, that leaves and yard waste was included in their bids. Further, if Option 3 was chosen and a resident requested a smaller cart rather than the wheeled cart, both bidders would provide that to the resident. Mr. Rumpke stated he would like to clarify that the way they read the bids was that it would be all 18-gallon bins or all wheeled carts. Mr. Smith stated he agreed that was the way it was written and he felt that was the guidance given to Mr. Drobina. He stated, however, Mr. Sabatino brought up a valid point. Mr. Rumpke stated they would not have a problem providing an 18-gallon bin in lieu of the wheeled cart. Mr. Giardina stated yard waste was also included in their bid, and Ms Lent stated their interpretation was also that it was either 18-gallon bins or 35-gallon carts. She stated because of Waste Management’s technology if you had one resident choose an 18-gallon bin and one choose a 35-gallon cart, that would require two separate trucks on the street because their trucks are fully automated with the carts. Mr. Sabatino stated Waste Management does have a history of picking up everything and questioned if Rumpke would also pick up everything that is put out at the curb. Mr. Rumpke stated they would and their intent would be to provide the same high level of service they provide to other communities. Mr. Sabatino further clarified that any complaint about missed pick ups, etc., would be taken care of the same day. He stated their level of service would mimic what was described as being provided by Waste Management. Ms Lent stated as every member on Council has stated, they recognize the level of service provided by Waste Management, and they are committed to that service.

Mr. Smith moved to recommend award of the refuse collection contract to Local Waste, Option 3, the subscription type recycling program with the small-wheeled cart. The motion died for lack of a second.

Mrs. Sanders stated in looking at the recycling for Rumpke and Waste Management they are very close in their bids. She stated in considering the fact that Council has heard from a number of residents that are very pleased with Waste Management, that we have dealt with them for seven years, and how important we feel customer service is, she was having a hard time between these two companies. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt it came down to a $5.02 spread on the low to high bidder, and he thought it would come down to how many people want to recycle and how many do not. Mr. Smith stated in the original bids there was major discussion over an additional $2.87 per month. Mr. Sabatino stated Waste Management has provided the City with excellent customer service, but he felt the Committee could not justify going for something that was $5.00 more expensive than they could have.

Mr. Rumpke stated he would like to offer that they have found that when recycling is optional, maybe five to ten percent of the customers participate, no matter what the price is. He stated their intent with their bid was to provide the lowest cost with the most value to the residents. Mr. Sabatino stated for the residents who do not want to recycle, clearly the better deal would be with Rumpke. He stated if the people have full intentions of using the recycling program, then the better deal would be with Local Waste. Mr. Sabatino inquired if this Committee should chose to award Option 3, would a customer have the ability to opt down to the small containers and Mr. Smith stated he had asked that question earlier and Rumpke said yes and Waste Management said no. Mr. Hansley stated he would assume Local Waste would also say yes because they do not use an automated truck. Mr. Giardina stated Waste Management did not say no, they just said it would mean sending another truck. Mr. Sabatino stated he had thought the bids would be so that the residents would have the option to do trash only, trash with a small container, and trash with a large container. Mr. Hansley stated he recalled the reason the first bids were rejected as to give residents a non-mandatory choice. He stated the option was not between the size of containers, but that they could either opt in or opt out of the recycling. He continued the only mandatory option was trash pick up.

Mr. Smith moved to recommend the refuse collection contract be awarded to Local Waste, with Option 3. Motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Sabatino stated that based upon the information provided this evening that the vast majority of people will not participate in the recycling, he thought the lowest and most responsive bid was from Rumpke. Mr. Sabatino moved to recommend award of the refuse collection contract to Rumpke with Option 3; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-1.

3. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sabatino moved to adjourn; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Smith voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Special Safety Committee adjourned at 9:12 P.M., August 13, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk