CC Min 2009-04-20 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Dan Domonoske, Vice President for SBR, reiterated that his company will serve San Mateo County with savings in the scale of $16 million over the course of the contract. He said that they have developed ways to reutilize garbage and compost. He provided details on the innovative ways this company uses recycling and how they approach recovery. He spoke about various green options and promised exceptional customer service. Mr. Domonoske said that his company values lasting relationships and they employ teamster unions in other areas. Public Comment: Shelley Kessler, a representative from the San Mateo County Central Labor Council, with time ceded to her from Dennis Kruger, stated that she sent two letters to Council questioning SBR's (South Bay Recycling, LLC) business practices. She opined that SBR is not the right choice (in reference to the Shoreway Recycling and Disposal Center Facility Operator agenda item) and she made mention of the MRF sorters and other environmental issues. Council asked Mr. Gans about the elements that made SBR's bid stand out. One Council Member asked if there was a difference befinreen the two firms on how to divert and convert materials. Mr. Gans said that SBR was more detailed and explicit. He explained that SBR is extremely qualified when it comes to sorting solid waste streams and he explained that HBR does not do any of this right now. He explained that the selection and the evaluation committees visited various facilities from each of the bidders. One Council Member asked about the history around Vocational Resources Services. Mr. Gans provided some historical information. He also explained what liquidated damages means in real terms. One Council Member would like to see some check-in points whereby Council could be assured that the delivery of services is occurring. Mr. Gans offered to create milestones to be included in the agreement. There seemed to be Council consensus to include this in the agreement. Cost was discussed and questions posed regarding the possible steps taken to track it. Mr. Gans explained that it is being done now and Mr. Ponty is keeping track of all this which is essentially the SBWMA budget. He explained this is a fixed price contract and so unless there is a force majeure then no changes are expected. On the issue of cost one Council Member asked about a one-time original cost adjustment which is equivalent to CPI adjustment. M/S Hartnett/Aguirre to approve recommendation 2 (SBR,) and if not fully approved on the first round, then Mr. Ponty to be given discretion to vote as he sees fit on the second vote. Mayor Foust stated this was going to be a roll call vote and not an electronic vote. Various Council Members were comfortable with the motion and the recommendation and how Mr. Ponty is solid in his position. Council thanked Mr. Ponty for the thoroughness of the work done. One Council Member thanked both bidders for their work and felt comfortable with the recommendation because, in the long term, it will serve the community. One Council Member said that it was important to have Mr. Gans present SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2009 MINUTES PAGE 3 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 352