CC Min 2009-04-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A representative from SBR addressed the issue of the General Manager being in Southern California at first and how the selection committee wanted that changed. He said that SBR adjusted its bid to meet the request. With regards to the trucks he said SBR has its own special trucks and indeed while the repair facility is down south they will have a truck ready to go should one break down. Dan Domonoske explained the other bid errors. He said that in general the lapses were based on changes that were requested by SBWMA, and also due to the challenging requirements. One Council Member stated that having a stable and solid work force is important. Mr. Domonoske expressed his views about the MRF sorters. M/S Howard/Hartnett to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Motion carries 6-0 by voice vote with Council Member Ira absent. Jon Kaufman, final speaker for SBR, said that his bid will cost less to businesses and residents of the area. He believes that ultimately the labor agreement will include the MRF sorters. He addressed the issue of environmental violations and he said that California has more stringent regulations than the other areas and the comparison might not be accurate. He opined that both companies are fairly equal when it comes to environmental compliance if one considers context such as age and geographical state. Mayor Foust asked Mr. Boyd to comment on the environmental issue. Mr. Boyd, with Allied Waste, said that SBR had 42 violations. David Gaurica, with HBR said he took exception to the comments made by the previous speaker. He added that SBR got 42 violations in two years and he feels strongly. He said this was not a low bid issue but there are qualitative differences. He spoke strongly about his commitment to the environment and how he does not recognize that same element in SBR. Mayor Foust asked if Mr. Patterson had heard from the teamsters and he confirmed. He provided some process information and how there was independent analysis. Mr. Patterson said that the MOU was a non-issue because that was not part of the process. He explained that the environmental violations were not on the same type of operations. He explained that the community recycling facility where the violations occurred was started 30 years. Council asked about the timing of other jurisdictions' vote on the matter. Mr. Patterson and Mr. Ponty provided details on the other cities' voting schedules. Mr. Patterson explained that the City of San Mateo is relying on the selection committee recommendation and Mr. Patterson's decision without a formal vote of that Council. M/S Howard/Hartnett to extend the meeting until 11:45 p.m. Motion carries 6-0 by voice vote with Council Member Ira absent. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING APRIL 13, 2009 MINUTES PAGE 8 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 345