Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.'p_H' . <br /> <br />_ ..'N'..' "l:;.j-, <br /> <br />said that they have developed ways to reutilize garbage and compost. He provided details <br />on the innovative ways this company uses recycling and how they approach recovery. He <br />spoke about various green options and promised exceptional customer service. Mr. <br />Domonoske said that his company values lasting relationships and they employ teamster <br />unions in other areas. <br /> <br />Public Comment: <br />Shelley Kessler, a representative from the San Mateo County Central Labor Council, with <br />time ceded to her from Dennis Kruger, stated that she sent two letters to Council <br />questioning SBR's (South Bay Recycling, LLC) business practices. She opined that SBR <br />is not the right choice (in reference to the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center <br />Facility Operator agenda item) and she made mention of the MRF sorters and other <br />environmental issues. <br /> <br />Council asked Mr. Gans about the elements that made SBR's bid stand out. One Council <br />Member asked if there was a difference between the two firms on how to divert and <br />convert materials. Mr. Gans said that SBR was more detailed and explicit. He explained <br />that SBR is extremely qualified when it comes to sorting solid waste streams and he <br />explained that HBR does not do any of this right now. He explained that the selection and <br />the evaluation committees visited various facilities from each of the bidders. <br /> <br />One Council Member asked about the history around Vocational Resources Services. Mr. <br />Gans provided some historical information. He also explained what liquidated damages <br />means in real terms. One Council Member would like to see some check-in points <br />whereby Council could be assured that the delivery of services is occurring. Mr. Gans <br />offered to create milestones to be included in the agreement. There seemed to be <br />Council consensus to include this in the agreement. <br /> <br />Cost was discussed and questions posed regarding the possible steps taken to track it. <br />Mr. Gans explained that it is being done now and Mr. Ponty is keeping track of all this <br />which is essentially the SBWMA budget. He explained this is a fixed price contract and so <br />unless there is a force majeure then no changes are expected. On the issue of cost one <br />Council Member asked about a one-time original cost adjustment which is equivalent to <br />CPI adjustment. <br /> <br />MIS Hartnett/Aguirre to approve recommendation 2 (SBR,) and if not fully approved on the <br />first round, then Mr. ponty to be given discretion to vote as he sees fit on the second vote. <br /> <br />Mayor Foust stated this was going to be a roll call vote and not an electronic vote. <br /> <br />Various Council Members were comfortable with the motion and the recommendation and <br />how Mr. Ponty is solid in his position. Council thanked Mr. Ponty for the thoroughness of <br />the work done. One Council Member thanked both bidders for their work and felt <br />comfortable with the recommendation because, in the long term, it will serve the <br />community. One Council Member said that it was important to have Mr. Gans present <br />tonight to have a better understanding of the solid waste diversion component. One <br />Council Member believes that the MRF sorters issue will get addressed at the correct time. <br />Various Council members made comments about their trust in the integrity of staff's <br />analysis and position. One Council Member said that both companies are strong <br /> <br />APRIL 20, 2009 <br />PAGE 3 <br /> <br />SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MIUNTES <br />