Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Dan Domonoske explained the other bid errors. He said that in general the lapses were <br />based on changes that were requested by SBWMA, and also due to the challenging <br />requirements. <br /> <br />One Council Member stated that having a stable and solid work force is important. Mr. <br />Domonoske expressed his views about the MRF sorters. <br /> <br />M/S Howard/Hartnett to extend the meeting to 11 :30 p.m. Motion carries 6-0 by voice <br />vote with Council Member Ira absent. <br /> <br />Jon Kaufman, final speaker for SBR, said that his bid will cost less to businesses and <br />residents of the area. He believes that ultimately the labor agreement will include the <br />MRF sorters. He addressed the issue of environmental violations and he said that <br />California has more stringent regulations than the other areas and the comparison might <br />not be accurate. He opined that both companies are fairly equal when it comes to <br />environmental compliance if one considers context such as age and geographical state. <br /> <br />Mayor Foust asked Mr. Boyd to comment on the environmental issue. Mr. Boyd, with <br />Allied Waste, said that SBR had 42 violations. <br /> <br />David Gaurica, with HBR said he took exception to the comments made by the previous <br />speaker. He added that SBR got 42 violations in two years and he feels strongly. He said <br />this was not a low bid issue but there are qualitative differences. He spoke strongly about <br />his commitment to the environment and how he does not recognize that same element in <br />SBR. <br /> <br />Mayor Foust asked if Mr. Patterson had heard from the teamsters and he confirmed. He <br />provided some process information and how there was independent analysis. Mr. <br />Patterson said that the MOU was a non-issue because that was not part of the process. <br />He explained that the environmental violations were not on the same type of operations. <br />He explained that the community recycling facility where the violations occurred was <br />started 30 years. <br /> <br />Council asked about the timing of other jurisdictions' vote on the matter. Mr. Patterson <br />and Mr. Ponty provided details on the other cities' voting schedules. Mr. Patterson <br />explained that the City of San Mateo is relying on the selection committee <br />recommendation and Mr. Patterson's decision without a formal vote of that Council. <br /> <br />M/S Howard/Hartnett to extend the meeting until 11 :45 p.m. Motion carries 6-0 by voice <br />vote with Council Member Ira absent. <br /> <br />Mr. Patterson spoke about SBR's Sun Valley facility. He said that the level of attention to <br />detail was impressive. Mr. Patterson stated that controlling the cost, while maximizing the <br />retrieval of the waste stream, are goals that SBR seemed to meet. He added that to the <br />best of his knowledge SBR would respect the labor agreements and from a site visit they <br />are efficient and detailed in their operations. <br /> <br />M/S Pierce/Hartnett to extend the meeting until midnight. Motion carries 6-0 by voice <br />vote with Council Member Ira absent. <br /> <br />APRIL 13, 2009 <br />PAGE 8 <br /> <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING <br />MINUTES <br />