BCC Minutes 02/07/1995 S (Agreement w/Waste Management)SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 6:10 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney
Item #SG1
AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA PURSUANT TO RFP
#94-2227 TO PRIVATIZE THE COUNTY'S LANDFILL OPERATIONS - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the County Commission
hearing meeting for February the 7th, 1995. We will take up item
8(G) l, which is the agreement with Waste Management to privatize the
county landfill. Mr. Lorenz.
MR. DORRILL: In just the interest of time, I thought
what we would do, since the Board has previously heard this item and
have a great deal of public testimony, each commissioner had received
an identical briefing prior to tonight's meeting. But for purposes of
the folks who are in the audience or who may be at home, I was going
to run back through those roughly two dozen points that were
outstanding for which the board had asked us to develop revised
language and thought that we might start there. And then Mr. Lorenz
and I are prepared to answer questions that the board members may
have. We've got a few people registered to speak. If there are other
people interested, if you'll just provide those slips to me.
The other housekeeping item is that we said this morning
that Commissioner Norris will need to leave around 7:00 p.m., and he
will be returning just shortly before 8:00 o'clock. And the
commissioners had indicated that we may go into recess or just wait
for him in the event that we are ready to take a vote.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we did agree to that this
morning, that if a vote looks imminent before Commissioner Norris
returns, we will recess until he does return.
MR. DORRILL: For purpose --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
MR. DORRILL: For purposes of the presentation, we are
working off of a set of revisions to the landfill optimization
agreement that were prepared and drafted at my direction by the County
Attorney. We'll make a copy of this available for the record. I'll
cite a number and the associated page and section number that
correspond with the board's previous instructions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you get into that, one
quick question. Commissioner Norris, you have to leave at 7:00 or to
be somewhere at 7:00? Because I have some information that I wanted
to provide that I want to make sure you're still here for.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's my understanding that if I
leave at 7:00, the timing should be just about perfect. So if I leave
right at 7:00 or maybe a couple of minutes before.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: The first item deals with section 2.2.
First several items deal with the necessary environmental audit that
will be undertaken for the facility. It provides for the
environmental audit that will be undertaken by the firm -- the
preferred firm from the county's prospective, which is Law
Engineering. They're an established national environmental
engineering firm. They are perhaps the largest environmental
engineering firm in Southwest Florida. It is our preference that we
use that firm. Waste Management is in agreement with that.
There is some additional language. I'm moving on
to 2.3. There's some additional language that deals with a
requirement to establish an effective date of the environmental audit.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Dorrill. As you
go through these parts is it all right if some of us still have
concerns about different sections if we try to address those as you
go? Or is it your plan to handle those later?
MR. DORRILL: You're the chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we do it as we go. We
might be able to get through this faster and as well the audience will
understand what it is we're trying to do. I believe Commissioner
Constantine has a question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Law Engineering -- perhaps
someone from Waste Management can answer this -- how much business
does Waste Management currently do with Law Engineering, if any?
MR. SMITH: Warren Smith, business development manager
for Waste Management of Florida. We use Law on a number of landfill
projects around the country, primarily, I believe, for wetlands work,
wetlands mitigation, wetland studies. I can't give you a number, but
we have a number of outside firms that we employ around the country,
and we do use Law from time to time. They are, however, an
independent engineer, absolutely independent of Waste Management or
any of its affiliates.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess why I asked, I'm just
curious from a perception standpoint -- and I understand they are
entitled, but from a perception standpoint if Waste Management gives a
million dollars a year, ten million dollars a year, whatever, for
their services, perception could very well be that --
MR. SMITH: I don't know, Commissioner, but we've
probably used every major engineering firm at one time or another
that's in the solid waste business. So you may not be able to find
anybody that we haven't used.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a follow-up, they are
our engineer of record, is that correct, on our list of --
MR. DORRILL: They may be for certain -- they may be on
our annual contracts list, primary for testing services. Law
Engineering -- and Commissioner Hancock might be able to help me here,
they have testing labs and they may do densities for us and core
borings and subsurface oil conditions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I did soils and boring
testing work while in college, and Law is kind of like an industry
standard. They're the big guys on the block that do work for just
about everybody. So when I saw them on the contract, I was kind of
happy. They are standard more or less.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we asked for them, right, or
staff?
MR. DORRILL: I did. But having said that, if there
were a concern, I can tell you that Buckley has also done work for the
county and prepared our original solid waste master plan. And while
they do not have a very well established presence in Southwest
Florida, I think we were just trying to determine and set a standard
for who was going to conduct that for further negotiation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: As part of that, there is a process to
receive the environmental audit and to have it formally accepted. And
as part of that, there is a four-week submittal time for the county to
review the environmental audit, having formally accepted it to
determine whether or not we wish to proceed in the event that there is
some severe unforeseen environmental problem at the landfill that
would cause us to want to change our mind and go back and develop a
different tact.
Upon the formal acceptance and receipt -- and I'm now
down to page 3, which is section 1 -- effective date will then be
amended to mean that effective date is contingent upon the board's
acceptance of the environmental audit and that it shall not go into
effect until 30 days after the formal acceptance of the audit, again
to give us time to have it evaluated in the event that there are
unforeseen conditions there.
Point number 4 and point number 5 deal with
post-effective sampling for groundwater and/or leachate sampling.
This requires -- and the key word here as prepared by our attorney is
that Waste Management shall split any samples that are drawn for
purposes of testing so that we are dealing with the same sample drawn
at the same time in the event that we choose, and at our direction, to
have independent analysis done.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where are you reading from?
MR. DORRILL: It would be on page 7, which is section
2.7.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Section 2.7.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe you could give us paragraph
references as you go through. MR. DORRILL: I will.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on that. The
contractor's environmental lab shall be a department-approved lab?
MR. DORRILL: The next one -- and then that would also
be 2.7 -- requires that a state DEP-certified lab. We happen to also
be a state-certified DEP lab. And for purposes of doing our own tests
we can either do them in-house or we can pick a separate lab at our
sole discretion. Any lab that is utilized by Waste Management for
purposes of reporting operating conditions to the DEP for their own
operating permit will be required to use a state -- a DEP
state-certified testing lab.
Point number 6 deals with Exhibit G. Exhibit G is the
fee schedule that is at the conclusion of the contract. As part of
this item Waste Management shall be responsible for the removal of
freon as part of the acceptance of any white goods delivered to the
landfill. It is their intent initially to use the county's scrap and
white good recycler who is a scrap dealer from Tampa. He's also
certified by the State for removing and capturing freon, which is a
recent environmental regulation.
Exhibit G also has a separate change on it that pertains
to the annual cost to administer our household hazardous waste program
facility that is at the landfill where we divert items that come
across the scale that are hazardous waste. There is a separate
roll-off container that those are placed into. We have negotiated an
annual lump sum fee of $25,000, which shall be the management fee to
Waste Management. They are not entitled to any additional
out-of-pocket expenses. It is a lump sum.
Back on section 2.9, a similar change in a requirement
that the contractor use a state-certified testing lab, DEP-certified
testing lab. Section 2. --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Dorrill. I think
it's important to note that that was a reference to the gas management
system, that an independent engineer certify the gas management system
as being designed to be sufficient; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: I'll need some help there because I'm
dealing off of an opinion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand these people don't
have the contract in front of them, although I imagine a lot do.
MR. DORRILL: Since you mention it, I did bring some
copies of the contract if anyone in the audience would like one. I
don't have one for everyone here. Mr. Keller will pass these out. If
you'll just raise your hand, he'll give you one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what you get for being
first. I just wanted to make that note for the audience so they
understood the reference.
MR. DORRILL: This is an item that I'll get to later.
But the one reference here is that it -- it deals with certification
of odor control. I'll get to odor control actually when I get to my
point number -- I believe it's 2.3. If not we'll come back to that
one. The next one is one that's -- that is important, and it's also
-- it deals with section 2.13. This is the issue that pertains to
approved synthetic material and/or tarps for purposes of meeting the
State's close of business daily cover requirements.
MR. LORENZ: Excuse me, Neil. This is 2.14. There is
some reformatting of the contract.
MR. DORRILL: That's what I said. You all correct me as
we go through. There were some changes that occurred really after
this exhibit was prepared. And if the section cites it wrong, you all
keep me straight on that.
The proposal that we now have for the section pertaining
to synthetic material -- and typically that is foam, we have
experimented with foam cover at the county landfill, we never put it
into a production mode but it was typically a foam material or a tarp
-- currently would allow Waste Management to use a tarp or synthetic
cover at the close of business on any given day in accordance with the
minimum allowable number of square feet. And Bill, you'll need to
help me with the actual square footage if we have one. MR. LORENZ: 150 feet square.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems to me that was one of
the items we specifically asked to have removed three weeks ago.
MR. DORRILL: And there are going to be several items
here where you may not feel that you have closure on it. And that's
why I said this is one of the important outstanding issues. To the
extent we can we have negotiated this down to a minimum allowable area
of 150 square feet. Any other area would then have to be covered with
intermediate covering in accordance with the state regs. But that's
where we're at as of this position, and that's the extent we've had
Waste Management negotiate through at this point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, would it be
appropriate to initiate discussion on this now, or is there a time
we're gonna come back to it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think you had left to do
something. We are going to address these issues as we move through
the contract.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The question I had, and
the reason that I requested a daily cover requirement as opposed to a
tarp, my understanding is -- and someone brought it up in a hearing
and it's made sense to me -- you put a tarp over it, the next morning
you pull the tarp up, there goes the odor. What's the difference if a
daily cover gets laid down and you don't pull it up? Is that
correct?
MR. SMITH: This is gonna take a little bit of
explaining, if you can bear with us, because you're talking about
landfill operations, and you haven't been involved in it, and maybe
just take a minute and visualize this. There is -- first of all, the
tarps or other alternative covers are specifically allowed by Florida
Department of Environmental Protection Code, Florida Administrative
Code. And they've went through -- they've gone through a lot of
hearings on the use of that and have decided that it's an acceptable
practice. And it's used not only in Florida, but it's used across the
country as an acceptable practice.
One misconception is that if you put dirt down that
that's inherently a better operation. First of all, your odors from
the landfill basically come from the decomposition of the garbage
after it's been buried for some period of time to where you start
getting the anaerobic decomposition and the generation of odors.
Typically you do not have odor from refuse that's been placed the day
before. It's very seldom that that occurs in any objectionable
amounts. So when the tarps are put down -- they call it the 18-hour
rule. You can use these alternative covers for areas that you're not
going to -- or that you're gonna come back to within 18 hours of
putting the tarp or alternative cover down. So you're always using
cover. I mean this doesn't eliminate the need for daily cover,
because if you're not gonna come back to an area in 18 hours, you've
got to put the minimum six inches of cover.
If you use cover daily instead of the tarps -- and we've
limited it to an area of about 50 by 100 feet. So it's more than 150
square feet, but it's like 50 feet by 100 feet. If you put dirt down
there at the end of the day, you're putting the dirt down with a D-6
dozer, a D-8 dozer, it's a large piece of equipment, you're very --
it's very hard to get just six inches of cover down. You're gonna
have ten or twelve inches of cover over the refuse. Then when you
come back the next morning you're gonna strip most of that material
off and expose the refuse anyway where you're gonna go back and start
filling. You don't want to take up a foot of air space at the end of
every day where you're filling.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if you use daily cover
material, come back the next day -- MR. SMITH: Come back the next day and strip it off and
then start filling.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what we do now,
Mr. Lorenz?
MR. LORENZ: Let me have Dave Russell speak to specific
operations.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, cause I'm just trying to
understand. I love the line in the movie "Philadelphia, .... Explain it
to me as if I were a six-year-old." You know, I'm trying to
understand why one is acceptable.
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell, Solid Waste
Department. Our practice is our general working face area is 150 feet
by 150 feet. We use six inches of soil cover, and it stays in place.
But I think we had proposed also to use tarps. I think the reality of
it is is that you very soon have a working face with fresh garbage.
So whether there's a very short amount of time where you roll back a
tarp or you're adding this new garbage that's for your ll-hour working
day is gonna be exposed to the atmosphere. The amount of odor that
might be produced from this tarp is minimal.
MR. SMITH: You say the tarps too are -- they're easy to
use. They're neat. They're neater, actually, than putting down the
dirt. They save time putting down at the end of the day, saves time
taking it up, at the beginning of a new day saves time, and it also
saves a substantial amount of air space over the life of the
facility.
MR. RUSSELL: Our calculation was that it was close to
one year's capacity over the life of Cell 6 if we went to synthetic
covering. And that's why we included it in our proposal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So did the RFP ask for the use of
synthetic covers also?
MR. RUSSELL: It was optional.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the county's response and the
county's bid included tarps?
MR. DORRILL: Under optimization it did, because we're
trying to maximize the amount of compacted material without that
sandwich layer, if you will.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you still have a need for
daily cover?
MR. SMITH: Oh, absolutely, because you're only talking
about that small area at the end of every day. If you're not gonna
come back into that area the very next day, then you've got to put
that daily cover on. You're using a substantial amount of daily
cover. You just have that 18-hour rule area that we're trying to keep
to a minimum that you come back the next day and begin your filling
operation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure we'll come back to the
use of daily cover later. But anyway, at least that puts it in closer
perspective than I understood them to be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, you want to
continue?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, if there's no other
questions. Section 2.15 is that section that deals with construction
and demolition debris recycling.
MR. LORENZ: Okay, this is -- this is -- okay.
MR. DORRILL: And that section requires them to use the
reasonable efforts to process that material at a capture rate of 80e.
There had been some previous comments that the capture rate had been
as high as perhaps 95e or 93e. That is true, but only for a very
limited period of time. It's my understanding that the 80e number is
an analyzed figure that we're using throughout the course of an entire
contract period that is -- has captured or recycled 80e of the
material. And we've got an 80e requirement in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That brings me to a question of
definition. And we talked about this last time. Some of what our
C & D recyclers accept now, and they're -- we have the two, Modern
Recycling and Naples Recycling. What they accept now has some things
in it that would qualify under the state definition as trash to be
landfilled. I believe the thing was that there may be some paper in
there or some things that would qualify it as trash. When that shows
up at the landfill, you know, what's gonna -- what's gonna make it go
to C & D or what's gonna make it go to trash?
MR. SMITH: Two responses to that, and then David might
want to add to it. But number one, the county -- your staff is gonna
run the scalehouse, so you have the ultimate control of what comes
into the landfill and once it comes in, where it goes, what it's
classified as.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We will direct whether it goes to
C & D or whether it goes --
MR. SMITH: And secondly, just as you are now operating
for that material -- that C & D recycle material that's qualified as
daily cover, you're now operating under a testing procedure approved
by DEP that we would adopt and abide by. And as long as the material
meets those testing procedures, then we can -- we'll take it and use
it as a daily cover.
MR. DORRILL: Next item is section 2.16. Again, this is
one that I would -- would flag or highlight where I think you're
either individually or your collective desire has not been obtained.
This was a requirement to offer on a first right of refusal basis at
the option of existing employees the right to transfer to Waste
Management, and that their guaranteed probationary period would be one
year. We have not been successful in negotiating the one-year
provision and we are at six months, six months being what is
consistent with county policy. It's my understanding they have not
agreed to that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we had settled that.
MR. DORRILL: I had too. At one point the last draft --
a great deal of the discussions, the management issues, and decisions
and negotiation were being made by me. The attorneys had been
meandering back and forth. The last contract proposal that we have
from them does not agree to one year. It is at six months.
MR. SMITH: Could I -- Mr. Administrator, could I add
something here?
MR. DORRILL: Go ahead.
MR. SMITH: We've taken a look at this. And what we're
gonna need for employees at the landfill are 16 people. So we have
looked at our total operations in Collier County and would be willing
to take on and guarantee the 18 people for a year, if some of these
people would be able to work at Collier County solid waste hauling
division. So they might not all have jobs at the landfill, but we'll
try to place them if they don't have jobs there at the hauling
division.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We'll need one year,
please. Mr. Dotrill, I have another question. And we had some
discussion on, I believe, there are three, maybe four employees who
are relatively close to vesting. Did we ever figure out -- MR. DORRILL: That's item 14.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- how we were gonna handle
that?
MR. DORRILL: On our bubble chart, if you will, the
proposal we have now for employees who are close to being vested it
takes ten years of eligible status to be vested in the Florida
retirement system. We have four employees who are all equipment
operators who are very near that. And we have one that has in excess
of nine years. I would say nine years and three months. My proposal
there is that we guarantee that person's eligibility through the time
period in question. Not knowing how long the environmental audit and
what not, I would hate to think the transition an employee who may be
within two months of being vested.
There are three additional employees who fall into this
seven-year-or-more category. And my proposal on that -- we explored
trying to create a mechanism to keep those employees on your payroll
for purposes of accruing vested status, but leased them back to Waste
Management. That has been determined to be in fact sub-diffused
around the eligibility requirements of the Florida retirement system.
We're not eligible to do that. We've asked for a written opinion, but
preliminarily they've told us that that mechanism is not available.
What I'm gonna suggest to you, which is outside the
purposes of this contract, is that we under separate board direction
create a mechanism in the event that those employees do not wish at
their option to transfer to Waste Management, that we create a
mechanism to put them in a holding status pending the availability of
comparable jobs in other county departments. So we would hold them
until such time that we through normal attrition have a comparable
equipment operator's job. And those jobs are available either in road
and bridge, water management, or utilities. And there are only three
people, the total employees who are affected, that would fall into
that category. That protects their retirement status if they choose
to do so. Other employees may think that opportunities are better at
Waste Management, and that's why it would be at their option.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. As long as we have
addressed that. You want to continue?
MR. DORRILL: Section 2.20 deals with customer and
community relations. They have agreed to provide the county
verification of any complaints through original written correspondence
that are received concerning any operating condition at the landfill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, this may be later on
your list. Stop me if it is. I had a visit from some folks that live
in the Estates, and they were talking about a citizens advisory
committee or a board. And I discussed that with some of the folks at
Waste Management, and they had actually already addressed it at one of
their proposals. And I've asked them to bring something a little more
concrete tonight on citizen involvement. Should we privatize what the
open-door policy is, how people can be involved, in other words kind
of a community watchdog group out there to relate things? Is that on
your list, or should we wait for Waste Management?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I think we ought to go ahead and
discuss it now. And if they have a proposal, I would think the
section in which to incorporate that would be 2.2 or --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's only fair I give
credit to Mr. Colletta for this idea. I think it's a terrific one.
I'll let Waste Management tell us how they can do it.
MR. SMITH: This is a reprint from the presentation that
we gave during the selection process after the RFQs-- or RFPs were
submitted. So this particular program has previously been offered to
the county. And very frankly, we have always intended to put
something like this in place. Let me just briefly describe -- grab
this other microphone. The program that we previously offered would
be to, number one, establish a neighborhood counsel. Typically at
other sites we would work with the neighborhood groups to select a
representative group of people that would serve on this counsel, ten
or twelve people that would be involved, perhaps.
We would actually help them organize. We would actually
provide some funding for the counsel so that they could conduct their
business, have quarterly meetings, have them involved in the -- in the
day-to-day activities of the site and review of site operations and
design and anything really they want to know about, and with the
funding enough money to perhaps even hire an independent consulting
engineer that could sit with them and be their advocate, if you will,
and check and make sure that the things that we're doing are the right
things from an independent standpoint. Involve community leadership
groups.
Another thing that we talked about, if you remember
Linda Long was here, who is very involved -- very involved in
education, education system in the communities, and incentives, and
getting school groups to actually go out to the landfill, giving them
tours, getting the school groups involved in what we do there on a
day-to-day basis so they understand it better. Community-wide
environmental programs is another activity we can work into this
overall program.
The open-door, open-house policy was mentioned. And
that's a policy at all of our landfills. You don't have to call ahead
to have a tour of the landfill and actually find out what's going on.
We have a policy that if any -- anybody, any citizen, anybody that's
interested can just come into the landfill unannounced, find the
manager or the person in charge, and get a tour and get his or her
questions answered.
And the last thing on the chart was that we've been
active members of this community and have been doing many of those
things since 1979 through Waste Management of Collier County. But I
think the key to this chart is the neighborhood counsel in getting the
Golden Gate citizenry involved and also the business community there
near the intersection by 75 and 84. And, you know, we're willing to
in whatever way the board would like to commit to do this. And we
make that commitment to you now tonight. Anything else that you'd
like to have us do to formalize that, we'd certainly consider it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it does.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I included that on my
change list for section 2.2 that that will be included.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's a good idea.
2.20?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 2.20. Mr. Dotrill, you want to
go on?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, how much do you
have? I'm trying to gauge --
MR. DORRILL: I'm about two-thirds of the way through.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you'll be
leaving in about 15 minutes. Is there anything in the rest of this
contract that you have a specific question on that you need to get
answered?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- from what I've seen and gone
through the contract, I believe that we have pretty much addressed all
the points that we discussed in our last meeting to my satisfaction.
There's very little in here that -- that needs much more discussion in
my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that if you had anything while you were away that we address it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no particular burning
issue out there right now that -- and no pun intended, of course.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Burning issue. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I might I'd like to
address some comments prior to when Commissioner Norris leaves. Does
that work for you?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, that works fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard Commissioner Norris
on the radio last week on "Carl Loveday's Radio Journal" saying he
would likely support this agreement unless he heard a compelling
argument against it. And before you go, John, I'd like to make that
argument.
Much like the bride or groom who calls off the wedding
the week before or the day before, very few people will argue with
that bride or that groom, "Well, gosh, we put all kinds of time into
preparing the catering, and spending money, and doing this. You got
to go ahead and get married." If it's not right it's not right. And
I'll tell you some reasons why I think that here. And I hope you will
hear me out.
January 17th this board voted 5-0 to set a calendar to
study, purchase, and permit the next landfill. We set a goal in mind.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, I don't
want to interrupt you, but we have a number of speakers as well. And
I think if you are making a summary argument --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am, but I want to make sure
this goes hand-in-hand. I think it can preclude some of that. And I
want to make sure Commissioner Norris hears this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we have enough speakers
to carry us well after 8:00 o'clock. Go ahead. I just -- in the
interest of trying to move forward.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, perhaps if I can be
compelling enough, we can move forward much more quickly. Again,
January 17th this board voted 5-0 to set a calendar, to set a goal to
study -- I think it's due back next week -- the initial look at those
six sites, set in motion a purchase and permitting of the next
landfill. That motion indicated our preference is to move that
landfill sooner than the 21 years, preferably in ten years or
thereabouts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If it's possible.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This contract does -- this
contract before us does two things. One, it limits our ability to
meet that calendar. As written it cuts the amount of flexibility we
have to meet that calendar. And, frankly, if we go with the early
option, the opt-out, this contract costs us millions of dollars more
to meet that calendar. If we enter into this contract, we need to
decide -- as it's currently written, we need to decide in 12 to 16
months -- I think it's October of next year -- whether to terminate
early.
Two thoughts with that. If we can make a knowledgable
decision in 12 months or 16 months on whether or not we're gonna be
permitted in eight years or ten years, seems like we ought to be able
to make that argument now. We're not gonna know any more about
permitting -- how far along we're gonna be permitted a year from now
than we are now. And so it leaves the question can we make an
informed decision within that 12 to 16 months?
Commissioner Hancock pointed out on the 17th we don't
know what hoops we're gonna have to jump through. You look at the
university as a good example of trying to get something permitted.
the chances are next year we're not gonna be exactly clear on when
those permits will be available. But if we don't make that decision
next year, it takes all our flexibility out.
Section 7.4 of this contract saddles us in the event of
early closure with post-closure costs even for those that are already
closed. And I will ask when I've completed, Mr. Lorenz, how much that
cost will be, because I'm not sure we know right now. It will also
saddle us with the costs of the unaccrued expenses spread over 21
years. And again I will ask, Do we know right now how much that will
be?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm trying to follow this
carefully. What are unaccrued expenses?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For any capital costs or for
their closure costs. They're saying those are accrued over 21 years.
We'd have to pick up the expense for the additional years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's my understanding that under
the two options, Option A and Option B -- and right now I'm not
entirely sure which one is which. But under Option -- I believe it's
Option A, which is to close at capacity of Cell 6, which is gonna be
about 9 1/2 years out --
MR. DORRILL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that you close it and walk
away. No additional money is due.
MR. SMITH: That's correct. We would pick up all the
closure costs, and the county would have the post-closure costs.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. And we would have the
post-closure. Under Option B what you're suggesting is true. Is that
still true that if we have to re-configure the closing --
MR. DORRILL: Additional unaccrued closure costs. And
at the conclusion of Mr. Constantine's remark I'll tell you what both
of these are. But under Option B, which is the time-specific
eight-year proposal, their unaccrued closure costs are estimated at
1,319,458.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the statement is true,
Mr. Constantine, as to the -- if we chose a time certain, the
eight-year time certain, because it was my understanding that if we
completed Cell 6 that the cost to the county to make it up to Waste
Management for not having the right to continue to collect that full
21 years of cost was we had to do post-closure.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again that's written --
MR. SMITH: I'll just clarify that if -- the
responsibility would be for only the unaccrued costs for closure of
Cell 6, not for the 21 years or 23 years maximum life of the site,
just for Cell 6 which is the part closed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if that only arises under the
fixed eight-year term.
MR. SMITH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then a third item of cost
we'd be saddled with is an additional 10~ management fee for those
unaccrued costs, which is $130,000 in this case, or more, for nothing,
just for the fact. You're not managing it if you're not spending it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that -- excuse me. Does
that 1.3 million include the 10~ management fee?
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is it's in addition to
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In addition? Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me that the board
has said through that 5-0 vote on January 17th to try to meet that
calendar that our preference is not to be at this location for 21
years. If that's the case it seems to me we should not approve a
contract that -- and I quote section 7.4, "Agreement contemplates the
contractors optimization of the Naples landfill based upon estimated
life of facility of approximately 21 years." If we said we don't want
to be there in 21 years, we shouldn't approve a contract that says we
do want to be there 21 years.
(Applause.)
Second, this contract penalizes us financially if we do
not go the full 21 years; and third, gives us only until October of
next year before we are -- if we haven't made a decision, we're locked
in for 21 years. Instead, if the board believes privatization is the
way -- and my argument isn't that we shouldn't privatize or should
privatize. My argument is with this contract.
I would suggest we should do a straight bid for a
period, be it ten years, but we know clearly what it is we want to do
now -- not an RFP, mind you, a straight bid with what we expect from
that bid, what the exact time frame of that is, period. And we would
have no penalties for early withdrawal as the case might be, no
worries of an early term. It seems like that would be crystal clear
and would be in keeping with the direction we've said we prefer, and
that is to be out of there in that time frame.
My concern in this contract is it gives us less
flexibility. Early-out costs us more expense. Early-out, I'm gonna
guess, will cost some legal wrangling in the way. And by the time you
add in -- we look at the tipping fees, and they are lower than what
we're spending right now. But if you add the penalty costs we pay on
the back end, I'm not sure if that is actually cheaper in the long
run.
MR. LORENZ: Well, the analysis would show -- and I have
some handouts here if we get into more details, but the analysis would
show that even considering the early termination costs, the effective
tipping fee would still be less than what the -- what the staff's
proposal would have been.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under staff's proposal. But
again my reference was just to if we have a straight bid, then we
may. But my thought is to be consistent with what we've said is our
preference. I don't think in good conscious we can approve a contract
that says something else.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For my information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner -- Commissioner
Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whichever one you want. What
does that mean, "Not an RFP, just a straight bid"?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An RFP is a request for
proposals. How are you gonna do it? What are you gonna do for us?
It allows them to use different type activities. It leaves
imagination there. A bid is we want it done this way, this long.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Period.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the process. I have two
concerns about rebidding or re-RFPing, whatever the language would
be. It seems to me it would be trouble that if you've had a sealed
bid and you open the process back up for bidding again, everybody's
seen everybody's cards, how can you have a fair bidding process?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because the RFP that was
issued last year isn't the same as what we would issue. First, we
wouldn't be issuing an RFP; it would be for bids. Those are different
things. And also the RFP was an optimization proposal. How long can
you keep this open, and how can you do it? And it was up to the
individual responder to tell us that. A bid would be, This is what
we'd like you to do, and this is how long we'd like it, for ten years,
period. So it wouldn't be contemplating 23 years, 25 years. So it
wasn't a sealed bid last time as far as proposals, and it's really a
different request at this point.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a couple of quick
points.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: First of all it's not my
understanding that if we don't make a decision in 18 months that we're
locked in; is that correct?
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have several decisions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The way the contract is
written --
MR. VARNADOE: Let me address that, if I could, Madam
Chairman. For the record, George Varnadoe. What I thought we heard
here the last time was that you wanted this board, the five of you, to
make that decision. That means making that decision on or before
October 31, 1996. Now I hear Commissioner Constantine saying we can't
possibly make that decision by that point in time. That's fine.
We'll go back to the original option we gave you, and that gives you
six years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George, I thought we had to
make that decision today, not either of the above.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last time we discussed this we
said it was important to us as a board that we -- this five people be
able to make that teevaluation.
MR. VARNADOE: That's exactly what was said.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And October '96 just happens to
be --
MR. VARNADOE: But as far as -- excuse me. As far as
Waste Hanagement's concerned is we told you last time -- and we'll
tell you again tonight, and we'll write it this way again -- what we
need to know is before we start spending money on the second phase,
which is going beyond Cell 6, and start permitting that and planning
that and engineering that and buying liners and getting it ready,
that's when we need to know. And that's approximately six years from
now or when you have a million tons of capacity left there.
So we can write this contract that you can wait up until
six years from now or until there's one million tons of capacity left
to make that decision if you want to close at the end of eight years
or you want to close when Cell 6 is finished or you want to stay there
from now on. We can wait that long. We were simply trying to be
responsive to what this board -- we heard this board say January
17th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What this board said January
17th was we'd like to have a public hearing by October of next year so
these five people could discuss it. But we also said we wanted option
years in 8, 10, 12 and 14, which isn't addressed here anywhere. So I
think you're giving part of the picture when you say you were trying
to address what the board said.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you'll do it the other way?
If you like the other way better, you'll do it the other way.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Let me
make a point, and then I'll bail out in a few minutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a problem here. And I
want everyone to think about it. And we'll discuss it further later
perhaps. The problem is the one thing that we have definitely
promised the community is not to expand to the north on that property
that we own. You mentioned permitting problems for one thing. There
are any number of things that could cause us delay in building a new
landfill -- field finding, buying, permitting the property, to have a
new landfill. There's any number of things that can go wrong in
that.
If we back ourselves into a corner -- and it won't be
this board, it will be somebody 10 years from now. If we back them
into a corner and not have a site ready to go and this thing is gonna
be closed in ten years, period, there's only gonna be one choice, and
that's gonna be to expand to the north. And that's exactly what will
happen. I think it's not only a possible scenario, it's a probable
scenario. And I think we ought to look at that before we make a
decision that limits our options like you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that comment,
but it's inaccurate in that we would have an agreement in ten years.
At the end of ten years you can extend that. You can run it
yourselves if you needed another year or two to do it. There are any
number of options. But I don't think I'm saying have a bid and then
the landfill is closed regardless of whether we have permits or not.
I'm saying let's have a bid, and we'll have a private contractor on
board for ten years, and we'll address any changes necessary.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And with that, I will see you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: See you in about an hour.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Probably less.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Similar to Commissioner
Constantine I have my list of goodies of dos and don'ts and goods and
bads. And rather than get into a debate now on those before we have
heard all public comment and before presentation -- I appreciate your
need to get that out to Commissioner Norris, and I think you received
somewhat of a response from him. But I would like to go ahead and
proceed with the presentation of public comment because I do think I
can answer some of your concerns in some of the research I did. And
the time to talk about it may be after the public comments.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, you want to move
forward?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. The next cite deals with
section 2.23. This is a section that will be followed by some
additional sections. This one deals with closure and post-closure,
and it requires that the contractor shall comply with specific
sections of the federal Clean Air Act. And those are cited in here as
part of the specific sections of federal Law.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on that one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My objective -- my agenda in
raising that issue is not that they have to comply with the law
because we know they do whether we stay with this contract or not. I
want to be sure that compliance with the regulations that are
promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act that are not currently the
law, because the rules aren't promulgated yet, cannot trigger a change
of law and, therefore, an increase in rate. And I'm not sure that
that change has been incorporated, although I understood that to be
your agreement when you were here last time.
MR. SMITH: That is the agreement, and I hope that is
what this says. We're saying that we have anticipated the federal
Clean Air Act as it applies to landfills. And our rate includes
compliance thereto.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it includes --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you point us where it
says that? It doesn't say that to me, so maybe you can point that out
where it says that.
MR. DORRILL: Let me get to that. And the issue -- the
way that we had explained this is that, in order to clarify our intent
here, if they have no disagreement, would say those sections as
they're cited in their specific sections in the federal register or
other applicable administrative rules of the Environmental Protection
Agency -- and the key phrase from my perspective would be "as adopted
and implemented," and the key phrase there being "and implemented,"
because there are certain sections that may have been adopted by
Congress, but until the administrative rules are developed by the EPA,
"as implemented" would cover their ultimate effective purpose.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's your understanding that
the federal Clean Air Act as adopted but not yet implemented, the
implementation of those regulations in their final form is included in
this contract?
MR. DORRILL: Would be under my suggestion, but I would
need to know either from Mr. Smith or Mr. Varnadoe what their concern
would be.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's specifically not that
compliance would be included but that they don't trigger a rate change
pursuant to the change in law provision.
MR. RAY: Just for reference to the record, John Ray,
representing Waste Management of Florida. Commissioner, I think your
point may be well taken. We are responding to, you know, language
changes that were given to us. We certainly said and we're committing
here to have the -- a change in law provision work such that the final
regulations that will be adopted on Hay 1 pursuant to federal Clean
Air Act would not be a change in law.
Now, please understand, Commissioner, what I'm not
saying. I'm not saying that subsequent regulations that might be
adopted in '97 or '98 or '99 that we have no knowledge of, we're not
excepting those from the change in law provision.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're talking about the
promulgated rules that are proposed but not finally adopted yet
pursuant to the Clean Air Act.
MR. RAY: Correct, correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And that's a clarification
that we'll make in the change of law provision of the contract. MR. RAY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. As we move forward,
Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Section 3.1. 3.1 is a requirement that
requires county to require their franchise haulers that they must
deliver their waste to the facilities. That has been incorporated
into 3.1.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question on that one
I've written down here. The Immokalee Disposal Company handles the
Eastern part of the county. MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we going to require them to
deliver their --
MR. DORRILL: "Facilities" as defined here would include
either the Naples landfill or what will be the Immokalee transfer
station that will replace the Immokalee landfill when it --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the Immokalee Disposal Company
will only be required to deliver its trash, for lack of a better word,
to the transfer station, and Waste Management will haul it from
there?
MR. DORRILL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Next cite is section -- let me get this
straight -- 3.10. Nope, 3.5. This was the concern on the part of the
commission where the county was going to assume responsibility for the
scalehouse operations. I think I've explained to you at least my
rationale for wanting to have a Collier County employee who was
employed and on the payroll of the Board of County Commissioners
actually operating physically the computerized scales that at the end
of the month they're gonna determine what the monthly draw is. My
rationale would be to have a county employee responsible for the
monitoring and the activities of the computerized scales. The credit
issue, if you will, and the dispute that was there -- Bill, the cost
to do that is 38 cents?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Previously we had indicated that it
was 56 cents. We basically took that by the cost of the operation of
the scalehouse divided by the tonnage that was gonna be buried in the
lying cell. We as staff took the opportunity to review our own work
along this line. We thought it would be more equitable to distribute
that tonnage across the total waste that comes in the scale because
obviously the scalehouse operators that we're funding has to -- have
to handle all the waste. So when we make that -- we made that
division, the cost of our scalehouse operation across it on a per-ton
basis is 38 cents a ton. We reflected this in the fiscal impact
statement for this executive summary.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't understand. What did
you base it on before?
MR. LORENZ: A smaller quantity of tonnage that was
basically being buried at the landfill, tonnage that Waste Management
paid for on the contract, but since we really need to spread that
tonnage across the total tons that are coming across the scalehouse.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So they have spread that
cost over the tonnage going over the scale, not necessarily the
tonnage going into the landfill.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which results in a lower -- in a
lesser savings to the rate payer than the previous analysis.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, yes. It will by 29 cents,
28 cents.
MR. LORENZ: That cost would be shared proportionately
in other rate payer cycles such as construction and demolition, but
that's basically what we do now.
MR. SMITH: Could I add to that, please? The county's
come up with 38 cents. Actually our number was about 30 cents to have
us run the scalehouse, which was the requirement in the original RFP.
It was only till we got into the negotiations and the county started
seeing there were different flows of funds and there were a number of
problems on how we handle that and different ways that the county
receives its revenue, plus the county was gonna have oversight of our
employees at the scalehouses, that it was determined that the county
wanted to run the scalehouse. And we don't find fault with that in
any way, shape, or form. We have other facilities where the county's
in control of the scalehouse, and it works fine.
Aside from the 30-cent to 38-cent difference in the
county's price and our price to do that, there were also some
trade-offs and redundancies. For example it is a policy of Waste
Management that we install, for security reasons and financial
tracking reasons, cameras -- video cameras at each of the landfills
that actually take a time-coded picture and a picture of the
transaction of each of the vehicles that uses the scale and enters the
landfill. We're gonna put those in anyway. And we're gonna track
those. And the county's certainly welcome to use those as part of
their accounting procedures, but we're gonna put those in anyway. We
also feel, just as the county did that it needed to have employees in
the sense watching over us, that we're gonna need employees that are
gonna watch over the county employees and make sure that things are
done properly.
There are some redundancies. There were some other
trade-offs. We were looking at -- you know, this just wasn't one
issue. This is one issue and a bunch of other issues that we
negotiated. We were looking at this thing as a whole and not just a
series of separate issues. So that's why we just -- there really
isn't that amount of money that we can give back, because we're
spending that money anyway.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we use the county's -- we use
what it costs the county to run the scalehouse, but you factored it by
the total amount going over the scale, whereas before you factored by
what gets buried. And there's -- you guys could have done it with the
cameras and everything for 30, and it costs us 38?
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: The issue there from my perspective being
one of custody and control. And from my perspective even if they
could do it for 30 cents a ton or do it with a cheaper employee, that
is primarily a function of a county employee that has been there for
at least ten years. Currently we may have a salary cost that is
higher than what they projected for a scalehouse operator, but I would
be willing to bet our monthly invoice and place it in the hands of our
female employee that's been there in excess of ten years running that
scale. That to me is worth eight cents a ton.
In addition with what we get from Waste Management
through the negotiation process was a requirement that they also
install the gas management system in Cells 3 and 4, which are the
original old un-lined cells at the landfill. And we have put a value
on that. The total cost of the gas -- Warren, I may need some help
here. The gas management system for the capital requirements through
Cell 6 in determination were estimated to be $1.7 million; is that
correct?
MR. SMITH: Sounds about right.
MR. DORRILL: 1,717,0007 And we're extrapolating that
as trying to put a value on Cells 3 and 4. And we think that is
consistent with that value for the gas management system that's
identified for Cell 6.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What about a gas management
system for the Immokalee landfill when it's closed? Is there gonna be
one?
MR. SMITH: That landfill is a very small landfill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. SMITH: And the requirements there for the landfill
that takes in that small amount of tonnage is not to have -- it is not
gonna require a gas management system unless there is a nuisance
cause. And at this point there hasn't been, and we don't really
anticipate one. So that's what we call a passive system.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said you were -- you
folks would count 30 cents -- your cost would have been 30 cents per
ton. Did we get -- I notice the price per ton has actually gone up
since the last contract. We didn't get credited that 30 cents that
you're now not going to spend apparently?
MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The price we were initially
given was for you all doing the scalehouse as well. Now that's been
taken out. You had told me you figured 30 cents per ton into the
cost, yet the price per ton has gone up rather than gone down since
the last contract we have.
MR. SMITH: Again we're making a lot of mid-course
corrections as we go through here. We had originally responded and
you had authorized the staff to negotiate with us a contract for the
155-foot elevation, which was the $13.92 rate per ton. And then last
time when the board directed that the height elevation be capped at
108 feet, which was our base proposal, then that raised the price in
accordance with our bid document to $14.92 a ton. That may be what
you're talking about, but the 30 cents a ton for the scale operation
didn't change.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems like it ought to. That
was included in your costs the first time around, and now you're not
gonna be expending that money. We ought to get 30 cents per ton
credit.
MR. RAY: If I may, Commissioner. Commissioner, if I
can answer that. I think, as Mr. Smith explained, just because we're
not operating the scalehouse and the county is, we're not gonna save
that 30 cents. We're gonna have somebody at Immokalee. We're gonna
have somebody down here at the Naples landfill. So we're gonna have
some redundancy. So we're gonna still experience some costs as part
of that 30 cents. So our net savings was substantially less than
that. In fact what we did was negotiate --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is your net savings?
MR. RAY: If I could just finish, Commissioner. There's
ten cents that we felt we were saving. And we negotiated away that
ten cents when we gave the county a guaranteed unemployment for
employees. We also waived a preexisting condition clause as part of
the medical. We also, as the administrators pointed out, put in a
provision for gas management at Cells 3 and 4, the closed section at
Naples. So there were some trade-offs here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many people --
Mr. Dotrill, how many people right now work daily at our scalehouse?
MR. DORRILL: How many? There are two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two?
MR. DORRILL: To my knowledge. Whether we stagger them
-- we have two employees in the scalehouse on average?
MR. RUSSELL: We currently have three employees covering
two scalehouses in the two landfill locations. And we use an
equipment operator as a backup.
MR. DORRILL: We stagger over six days a week, but we
have a total of three. And on any given day we have essentially two
at the Naples landfill?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ray, you're gonna have
one person at each location 40 hours a week? MR. RAY: Mr. Smith.
MR. SMITH: That's actually 55 hours, 60 hours a week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're gonna have somebody
there all the time --
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- sitting and watching the
activity?
MR. SMITH: And if that employee has to leave for a few
moments, there are other people trained to run the scalehouse.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you'll have a full-time
employee at each location?
MR. SMITH: Yes, that's correct.
MR. RUSSELL: We essentially have one person on each
scalehouse. But there is some overlap time, and we try to keep that
to a minimum. If we do privatize, since we're not gonna have an
equipment operator that can act as a backup, we're gonna have to add
an additional scale to meet those two 66-hour schedules at those two
sites. So our budget envisions for sale attendants.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we were talking
about the gas management system. And the original proposal, which is
the -- not the alternative, but the base proposal shows $2,456,000 for
gas management in the totals column. MR. DORRILL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And now we we're talking about
1.7. That's a difference of about $740,000. Is that scaled down due
to only doing Cell 6 as opposed to 108 feet with -- with the valleys
between the cells or what?
MR. DORRILL: I don't know what the difference is. I'll
either ask Warren or Bill to address the difference in the original.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess the 700 -- we were
talking about putting the gas management system in Cell 3 and 4. Is
that 700,000?
MR. DORRILL: Bill's correcting me that our contention
on that was that it was part of the RFP.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was part of the RFP?
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. Bill, you
correct me if I'm --
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. In discussions I know that
Waste Management may not have seen eye to eye on that. But from
staff's prospective we considered gas management on Cells 3 and 4 as
part of the RFP for providing total gas management of the site.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well --
MR. SMITH: We did disagree on that. We probably
continue to disagree. What we had proposed to do, and there was no
way -- our contention is there was no way for us to know what was
going on. You were in the midst of a closure when the bid was going
on. You even installed a cap on that Cell 3 and 4. You've got
landfill gas collection with wells that are in there. You've got
pipes that are venting into the atmosphere. What we're gonna do now
immediately, if awarded the contract, would be to go in and manifold
those pipes together, collect that gas, put the landfill under a
negative pressure, and burn the gas off with a flare system that would
control the odors.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would be on 3 and 47
MR. SMITH: Right, 3 and 4. And then on to Cell 6 and
begin the gas system there. Immediately you need to do something with
Cells 3 and 4 because you're just venting gas into the atmosphere
without any flare, so you're just basically --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think my question, based on
what Mr. Dotrill said, the $1.7 million that you gave us as a price
for gas management, does that include what you're talking about doing
for Cell 3 and 47
MR. SMITH: I would have to go back to the accountants
because I don't have that in front of me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SMITH: The $1.7 million for the gas system is
through Cell 6. It was our contention that whether we misunderstood
or we continued to have this disagreement on the completion of the gas
management system for Cells 3 and 4 that that was another 200 to
250,000 dollars worth of work. And that was what we in essence traded
part of the savings on the scalehouse to do that work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that gas management system
essentially the same system you're using in Broward and/or in Lee?
MR. SMITH: The design and the methodology is similar,
yes. We have -- in Broward we have an electric generating facility
that's added on to the end of it, but in Lee I think there's a flare.
We would have a flare here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ready to move on?
MR. DORRILL: Next section would be 3.10. And I think
3.10 is still the same as it pertains to county equipment; is that
correct?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one quick question on
gas management.
MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In both locations I assume
you're currently in compliance with federal regulations?
MR. SMITH: At Broward County, if you're referring to --
I guess this is a trick question, right? You're trying to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a yes or no question.
MR. SMITH: At Broward County we have had some problems
recently. And we have complied with the regulations there. The odor
problems resulted from a massive amount of hurricane debris that was
put into the landfill over a three-month to six-month period where we
actually disposed of up to 30,000 tons a day shortly after the
Hurricane Andrew clean-up. And it did create a problem. There was a
lot of organic materials, and construction debris, and wall board that
caused a problem that the landfill gas collection system wasn't able
to handle. We installed another $6 million worth of facility out
there to handle it. It is handling it now. I think it was a very
quick response to a very -- a problem that was caused by a very
important need to dispose of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer then -- are either
or both currently in compliance?
MR. RAY: The answer to that is yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ready to move on?
MR. DORRILL: 3.10, this was the question that arose
concerning whether or not contractors should be required to purchase
the equipment from the county. I think the -- the easiest answer for
that is I'm not in -- I'm not in agreement with that. Our original
specification as part of the RFP said that all vendors needed to take
into account and assign a value for the equipment that was being given
to them and incorporate that into their tipping fee proposal. So this
is another one of those items, if you will, that should be flagged as
not having been modified based on the concern that you had in a number
of these cases. I think there's good reason for that. And that's the
one I had just given you.
We have updated what we feel to be the depreciated value
of the county's equipment. And I need to tell you in terms of
complete disclosure here it is -- it is far in excess of the number
that I gave each one of you privately. I think when I was meeting
with you privately, because we had not been able to ascertain a value
I was using a number around a quarter of a million dollars. It's my
understanding now that it was substantially more than that in terms of
the value that was there in terms of rolling stock. However, my
contention is the same, that all prospective vendors or bidders had an
opportunity to assign a value to that and incorporate that value into
their base fee. Dave, do you mind just stating for the record what we
determined the depreciated value of that equipment to be?
MR. RUSSELL: The finance department provided these
figures that the depreciated value is 1.277 million for that
equipment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a million dollars more
than we thought.
MR. DORRILL: It's important. And that's what I said
for purposes of disclosure, but all bidders had an equal opportunity
to see our rolling stock that is in place both here and in Immokalee
and assign a value to that for purposes of giving us their sealed bid
proposal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Have we been -- this is an
accounting question, and you may not be able to answer it. Have we
been depreciating that over taxable depreciation years or of a class
life? Do you have any idea?
MR. RUSSELL: The financial department determines the
schedule, and they didn't share that with me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a significant difference
between the two. I mean --
MR. DORRILL: I don't know the answer to that.
MR. RUSSELL: I can say I researched the book values
from a third party that looks at all auction sales nationally, and
that value came to 991,000.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So the fair market value
if we would -- MR. RUSSELL: That would be fair market value, and
that's quick sales. I would say that would be wholesale price.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 900 what?
MR. RUSSELL: 991,200.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The reason I ask about the two
different methods is that heavy equipment like this would be
depreciated for tax purposes much more quickly than the class life
would be. So we don't know that answer right now.
MR. DORRILL: My hunch is we're doing class life because
we don't have tax concerns that a private entity would have. We can
verify that.
In conclusion on that section we did add a new third
sentence that says upon determination that the county is entitled to
any and all of that original equipment also at no cost. So we're not
obligated to buy our own equipment back. Now, depending on the life,
if we're out somewhere nine or ten years, it's gonna be substantially
less than it was on day one. In fact it may only have a residual or
scrap value. The point being that if it has any value at all, we're
entitled to that at cost.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That helped me a lot. Basically
they're using the equipment, but we get it back should it be
terminated in eight years. Is that what you're telling me?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With opportunity to buy it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a difference between
opportunity to buy it and get it back at no cost. I want to know
which one this is.
MR. DORRILL: This is no cost.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second thing, this was
mentioned to me, I think it's contributed to Commissioner Norris.
Since he's not here I'm gonna steal it. And that is that we have
already paid for that equipment out there. If we take the cost, say
1.27 million, and fold it back into the contract and still -- if you
look at just completing Cell 6, that's a little less than 50 cents a
ton to pay for that equipment. So we're in essence gonna pay for it
twice.
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. The users have already
paid for that equipment. And to get the sale price from the
contractor would in effect make the users pay for it twice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So according to contract that is
not a real good idea.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions there. One,
what's the average life span of these pieces of equipment?
MR. RUSSELL: It varies. The pieces that are in the
working face we estimated for our calculations at bidding at five
years. And I suspect the schedules that are used by finance are
longer than that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the chances of actually
getting back a useful piece of equipment in eight years is pretty
small?
MR. RUSSELL: It's all gonna be used up.
MR. DORRILL: That's what I said. It will essentially
be scrap value, if you will. But if there is any residual value at
that point, we're entitled to it at no cost.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second point, the funds
we have or the funds theoretically we would get if this was tied in
the contract -- you can say we're paying for it twice, but I'm gonna
assume that money would be available for use in the purchase and
permitting of our next site. So those funds would actually be put
into a more liquid useful purpose for us right now than leaving them
in the equipment, I would think.
MR. RUSSELL: That would be possible to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think that would be
the benefit.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, it's on my page of notes
on addressing those types of issues. I didn't want to get ahead of
myself here or --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Lets move forward.
MR. DORRILL: I'm on to 5.4, and I'm almost finished.
Section 5.4 deals with unusual and unanticipated increases in cost
that are borne by the contractor. There was a desire on your part
that they not be allowed to petition for rate increase under this
mechanism more frequently than once every two years. They've agreed
to that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MAybe this is a legal question
and I don't understand it, but when we're talking about unusual and
unanticipated increases, I've been using the example say the cost of
fuel went up, we need to renegotiate. Is that unusual or
unanticipated? I'm looking for exactly what is that? I really don't
know. I mean are we talking about fuel costs, the oil or maintenance
of vehicles if there's a cost associated with those that go up, are we
gonna have to revisit that and add it into the contract? I just don't
know what the cutoff line is on that, and I'd like a feel for it.
MR. SMITH: Let me just say that the only thing that we
can do is ask, and we can only ask once every two years. You're under
no obligation to grant it, so we have to prove our case. And it might
include unusual increased prices in fuel costs. If we had an oil
crisis, if we had a -- where gasoline went from, you know, $1.25 to $3
or $4, but it wasn't handled by the CPI.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But fuel is more expensive today
than it was three months ago. That's not unusual or unanticipated,
that's expected in your schedule of operations?
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted that on the record.
Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The point is they can only ask,
and we can say no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's right. We can say no.
Mr. Dotrill, you want to move on?
MR. DORRILL: Couple of the last things, 7.4 deals with
those early terminations options that we previously eluded to this
evening.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, which section is
this?
MR. DORRILL: 7.4.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Deal with early termination. They're
Options A and B. They've previously been eluded to. I think you
understand those, and I won't elaborate on those at this time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a question then,
because it says in order to exercise early terminations Options A and
B, the county shall provide the contractor with notice prior to
October 31, '96. George, wherever he was, said, "Gosh, that's not the
case. You've got another option here." But I don't see it in
writing.
MR. RAY: I don't believe that's what Mr. Varnadoe
said. I think he said that is what's in the contract now, but that
was -- I don't want to speak for George, he's here.
MR. VARNADOE: I wrote it down, in case,
Mr. Constantine, you couldn't remember what I said. I said that we
would go back to the earlier option we gave you in the prior contract,
and that is six years or when there's a million tons of capacity
left. Hake up your mind.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it possible to have all of
them? Is it possible to have this termination of October 31, 1996, in
case things go well and we're happy?
MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. And as I tried to explain
before we want to give you as much flexibility as we can. And at some
point in time we got to get ready the next cell if you want us to stay
there. What we're trying to do is say up until that point in time you
can make up your mind what you want to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I sometimes have trouble
following you. I'm gonna ask you for some help here. MR. VARNADOE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The six years that was
written -- I have here somewhere in this pile the original contract.
The six years is when the decision has to be made by, or that's when
Waste Management would be gone?
MR. VARNADOE: No. That's when the decision has to be
made, sir. Then you can have -- terminate eight years, or Cell 6
would be --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm with you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine --
MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me, Mr. Hancock. If you choose --
I don't have the contract in front of me either. But if you choose
the eight-year fixed term option and you get to the sixth year and for
some reason -- and you say everything is going okay, there's only two
years left to fill Cell 6, you can then opt for option -- the other
option that's A or B and go ahead and fill Cell 6. Again,
Mr. Constantine, the only requirement being that we know in time to
get things ready if we're gonna have to re-permit the closure of
Cell 6 at an earlier date.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to make sure I
understand clearly, then, we could next year or by the sixth year say
we want to be out in eight years. We find ourselves come that sixth
year not sure of ourselves as far as permitting, and we say, okay,
we'll stay till the conclusion. We can change in midterm to the
conclusion of Cell 67
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. Yes, sir. And earlier
you asked me about -- I know that the board had talked about 10, 12,
maybe in 14 years a two-year rolling option. And frankly the problem
with that is you don't know where you're gonna be volume-wise at the
end of ten years. Is Cell 6 gonna be full, almost full? And you
know, we have provisions in there for kind of a renegotiation for if
you need to extend it at that point in time.
Obviously you can do it yourself. You can go out for
another RFP or a bid process for a short period of time if you need a
little more time. But there is no way at this juncture, not knowing
what the volume usage would be, for us to tell you what that would
cost. And we didn't want to try to guess and make it more
complicated. So that's why we have the eight-year in the Cell 6 being
really the two options that are there for early termination.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you just said this, but
I've got to make sure I got it straight in my mind. As Commissioner
Hancock suggested, we can decide this by October of next year or
anywhere up to year six?
MR. VARNADOE: End of year six.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that year six is tied to
basically a yard or a tonnage that is remaining. That's another
important point.
MR. VARNADOE: Let me clarify. I keep talking about
years. It's not really years. What we're saying, Mr. Constantine, is
year six or when there's a million tons of volume left, whichever
first occurs, that might be five and a half years or five years or,
you know, could be --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seven, we don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So let me see if I've
written this down correctly now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seven years, three months.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got three time frames in
here we can tell you what we want to close. One is October 31.
MR. VARNADOE: You can take that one out. I mean what
we could write is at any point in time up until --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Up till --
MR. VARNADOE: We don't care when you tell us. You can
tell us the day after you sign the contract. The only reason --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are you guys doing
tomorrow?
MR. VARNADOE: I was trying to be responsive,
Mr. Constantine, to the issue that came up last time about this board
deciding --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, the reason I like the
'96 in there is we wanted it in there so it forces a public hearing
in '96. I think we want that, and I think they would want that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. I like the October
'96. But if we miss the date --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or if we don't make a
decision.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we still have a one million
ton capacity or six years, whichever comes first.
MR. VARNADOE: Let's just run through a scenario I think
might be likely, knowing environmental permitting a little bit.
Unfortunately, is October 31 of '96 -- you've chosen a site.
Hopefully you're out to get somebody else to get the permits for you
and design the landfill. I say "hopefully" because we like to be
involved in that process. And you say, We want you out in the end of
eight years.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You guys say you can do it in
six years. I'd love to have you do it.
MR. VARNADOE: And you say, okay, We think we can get
this done. We want you out in eight years. Okay. You make that
decision in '96. Then you come along -- let me get my dates right now
-- four years after that or five years after that and you saw it's
taking longer to permit the site or it's gonna be a lot cheaper to let
you stay there another year and fill Cell 6. It's not being too
objectionable to the neighbors, let's go ahead and fill Cell 6 and
then close it down. So you have the ability to make that one option
and then before the end of year six jump to the other option.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Not to thoroughly confuse things.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We want it all, George. We want
it all.
MR. VARNADOE: You wouldn't be politicians if you
didn't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question is how will
that verbiage read? Because that's not how this one reads, and as
long as everyone's comfortable --
MR. VARNADOE: I think we can go back and use the
October 31, '96, as A, then go back basically to the original language
that says six years or one million tons. I think your staff was
comfortable with that language.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's not say the original. That
was the last draft.
MR. VARNADOE: Last draft, the one we talked about on
January 17th for the dates for termination.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ready to move on, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Final section change, and then there's
some changes on some of the exhibits is 8.15.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's go back, I'm sorry, to 7.
I thought we were gonna go through these pages. There's on page 26,
item D, sub 2, "Extension of Early Termination Option A," the county
only gets 30 days to respond to the notice of, I guess, 1 million tons
being left? In the contract we looked at on January 27th we had 180
days.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention public advertising
difficulties within that 30 days, and scheduling.
MR. RAY: Commissioner, if you need more time we can
change that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I'd like to see the 180
days again.
MR. RAY: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under 7.4, section C, I just
want to reiterate, third line of that, "Early Termination Payment,"
"Contractor's optimization of the Naples landfill based upon
estimated life of facility of approximately 21 years." I just wanted
to point that out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That does raise a question,
Mr. Weigel, that I had. And it started on page 1, and this is just a
legal question. I'm surprised Ms. Hac'Kie hasn't asked it, but maybe
she knows the answer.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe it's on my list.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The forth "whereas" states that
the county's determined it's the best interest of citizens of Collier
County to engage the services of a private contractor to optimize the
county's full solid waste management facility capabilities. And there
are a couple other references here to optimizing. If we in fact do
not truly optimize, are we putting ourselves in jeopardy of
noncompliance with either this or the original RFP? I just want to be
clear on that.
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate the question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can those comments come back
and bite us in the rear end when we're trying to permit the next
site?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And can -- I guess that's a good
question is can -- from Waste Hanagement's perspective, can they
utilize the optimization language in the contract to try and force a
longer time period? No offense intended, but it's a viable question.
MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question. And I think we all
discussed that a little bit at the last meeting and can go into more
detail now. That is that ultimately the parties to this contract,
Collier County and Waste Management, if it's the other party to a
contract of this type will be bound by the terms of this agreement.
The obligations, responsibilities, rights, availabilities, all are the
four corners -- to use that phrase -- of the agreement. Any
statements that the Board of County Commissioners or the other party
may make or assumptions that they may have outside of this agreement
are not pertinent to the legal enforceability and the clear language
of the document -- the contract document itself.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're an excellent attorney
because I don't know what you just said.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll continue. This is an agreement,
the essence of which conforms to the request for proposals which is
privatization management and optimization. If allowed to run its full
course, it will go for approximately 21 years. That follows the
legalistic requirements of the RFP and in fact the intention of the
RFP and the response to the RFP.
The board in its negotiation has provided for a
potential for an early termination. In large part the termination,
depending on the options taken, put the parties in a place where they
walk and the county assumes responsibilities for the landfill
post-closure, et cetera, which are no different responsibilities than
they would have if they continued with the operation of the landfill
itself in a continuous manner. So therefore, no, we're not putting
ourselves in a position of risk by entering into this agreement
essentially as it is worded now concerning the fact that the board may
be able to opt out or terminate it earlier than 21 years because it
still provides for 21 years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I may have to apologize because I
think I did understand you. In essence the language allows us to opt
out?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Makes the optimization more or
less go away. In other words the optimization references in the
contract can't be used against us because in fact we have an early
termination clause in the contract.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Both parties walk into this
agreement eyes fully wide open understanding what the agreement is
about. The discussions that are had at the board meeting entering
into an agreement my be relevant for explanatory purposes, but the
record will show and I state advising you legally that the contract
document itself will be enforceable one party to the other for the
duration of the agreement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. I didn't mean to
embarrass you with that comment, not that you haven't heard attorney
jokes before.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And at the risk of your thinking
I'm not a good lawyer the answer, I think, is that the optimization
language is in there so we comply with the RFP and we don't get in
trouble with that regard. But to the extent that there are wheteases
(sic) and other language talking about optimization that are contrary
to specific paragraphs in the contract, throw out the wheteases
(sic). It's the paragraphs that count.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Important part is he said it for
the record. That's what I needed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Final section is 8.15, a final sentence
that was added that indicates that in the event that either side
chooses an arbitration the prevailing party shall be entitled to
attorney's fees and other reasonable costs associated with the
arbitration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why was that put in?
MR. DORRILL: I think the rationale being to prevent
either side from being unreasonable and to provide a disincentive for
that in the event that you don't prevail you're obligated to pay all
the other party's attorneys fees and costs that may pertain to the
arbitration including the arbitrators as I understand.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sort of a mini tort reform.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Okay.
MR. DORRILL: On to Exhibit D. Exhibit D has been
modified to meet your express desire that the maximum height shall be
108 feet above sea level as defined previously in the document.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that meets the current
permit?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Subsequent change on Exhibit E as it
pertains to screening berms and the associated height of any screening
berm --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Was that E you said?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. -- shall be no less than 15
feet in height.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question before we got to that.
On page 37 there was an addition that says, "On-site testing will be
conducted as necessary based upon the above phase 1 audit as directed
by the contractor." If a phase 2 is required, the cost of phase 2 is
borne by the contractor; is that correct? Because everywhere else it
talked about an audit the following statement wasn't borne by the
contractor, and it wasn't following this one.
MR. RAY: That's correct, for the record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Further, in Exhibit E, under "Operating
Plan," page 78 -- excuse me. That was one that was proposed that was
not added.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What was that?
MR. DORRILL: That it was previously covered as it
pertained to alternate cover.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Alternate cover?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Was that something that we had
asked for but what was not agreed to?
MR. LORENZ: This would be the discussion about daily
cover.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tarps.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I've got a redundant note that we
previously covered that one. I've got, I think, three more. Exhibit
E we had the addition of words "and/or site"
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Page 10.
MR. DORRILL: Some of these are just wordsmithing now,
and these were added. And again these were some notes that David has
proposed subsequent to that.
Also, under Exhibit E, page 11, struck out the word "no"
of the last sentence of the first paragraph in section 10.2.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You struck out the word "no"?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That there is pretreatment
requirement?
MR. DORRILL: David, I'll need your help on the last
two. I'm not familiar with either of the last two. I'm gonna let
David explain them, David and/or David. Mr. Smith, are you with us on
these? I'm down to the final two changes.
MR. RAY: There was a request to delete the provision in
that plan that indicated that -- that there was no pretreatment
requirement. It is our understanding there is no pretreatment
requirement.
MR. RUSSELL: There is pretreatment required, and
striking this "no" makes this consistent with the words found in the
agreement.
MR. RAY: We're gonna have to take a minute.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're at page 11, 10.2, first
paragraph, last sentence, "WHIF understands that there is no
pretreatment requirement for leachate discharge." Mr. Dotrill has
said we want to eliminate the word "no," indicating that there is
pretreatment requirement. Is that true, Mr. Russell?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, there is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is? Okay.
MR. RUSSELL: Just not -- let me find the cite in the
contract here in a minute.
MR. DORRILL: The only other one that I have that's part
of that same section, this is the final one, would be as part of that
same section that we add the word "contractors." CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For what section?
MR. DORRILL: I believe that one has been done. The
same section, the final paragraph, we struck through "county" and
added "contractors." It pertains to the responsibility to manage the
leachate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, the contractor's
responsibility is there.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: We'll need to confer on that one. That
concludes all the changes that were made and/or directed, and we
flagged the ones where we are recommending or we are at an impasse in
terms of a couple or three of those.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have three items that we -- on
my list of things that we're at an impasse on. Do we have an answer
to the word "no"?
MR. RAY: We do have an answer. I think there was some
confusion relative to leachate versus gas, and they are installing a
pretreatment of the gas station at the head.
MR. RUSSELL: The county does the installation, and then
the contractor accepts that. And that -- that language in E
acknowledges that fact and makes it consistent with the agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's okay to strike the word
"no," and everyone's happy with that? MR. RAY: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. I'll make a note of
that one. And Mr. Dotrill, that concludes the changes that you've
worked through on these?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have questions from the
board pertaining to this contract in general?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one more. I asked the
question before about Broward and Lee County. Are they being operated
under -- and I think the wording in here is "best management
practice"?
MR. SMITH: We're complying with all the environmental
regulations of DEP for that. And the answer would be yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what qualifies as best
management practice? That phrase stood out. I don't know what that
means. I assume that has some meaning either from you or --
MR. SMITH: That was a term that we had talked about
either in a meeting or in our subsequent discussions after the last
board meeting that was a term commonly used in other contracts with
the county. And I'm not sure we quite said it as best management
practices, but it was something comparable to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering how do we
define that? Maybe Mr. Weigel can help me with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Probably changes.
MR. DORRILL: Commissioner, you're referring to section
2.9 as it pertains to gas management?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I am. Yeah, 2.9,
section A, fifth line, "acceptable and best management practice." I'm
wondering what does that mean? Sounds great, but I have no idea what
it means.
MR. VARNADOE: If I could, we do some engineering
contracts. And I'll tell you, and you can ask your attorney,
obviously I just want to throw my little two cents in here. George
Varnadoe again for the record. It's an engineering term. And
Mr. Hancock can probably add to this that at any point in time. Most
things like this are of an evolving nature. And at the point in time
where you do it there is a -- it could be more than one,
Commissioner. There's gonna be a range of what are kind of
state-of-the-art or best management practices at that time.
You see it a lot with wetlands uses. You see it with
water management systems. It's how do you do it at that point in time
from an engineering design prospective that would be up-to-date that
would be the best management practices. It could be -- I'm not
telling you it's any one, it could be two or three.
So I guess I would probably -- not knowing how old
Broward County landfill is or how old's Lee County would not maybe
agree that they would be BMPs. They may have been when they were
designed, they may not be today because in this instance you've got an
evolving target, if you would.
MR. CONSTANTINE: That brings me to my question then, is
where it refers to gas management system that will meet or exceed
industry standards as an acceptable and a best management practice, is
that as of 1995 or is that during the course of this? So if a year
from now there's a way that is clearly better than what we have now to
control gas, you'll update that as time goes on?
MR. VARNADOE: When the original -- the original is
obviously gonna be the best way we know how to do it today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. VARNADOE: Or if there are better ways that come
along then yes, we'll be working on those. But the intent of 2.9 is
to going in to give you the best design we can today, have your
consulting engineer look at it and say yes, that constitutes a BMP.
That has meaning to engineers. It doesn't have a hell of a lot of
meaning to me or you, but it does to them, frankly. And then for us
to go and permit it and build it and them to say yes, they built it
like they said they would and as they designed it, and then for us to
operate it and him to come in and tell you all that yes, they are
operating correctly or no, they're not. And if we're not then there's
some financial sanctions to --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This allows the contractor to
inspect that -- I think it says annually. I'd have to read it again,
but I think it says annually can inspect that or more often at our
request and make sure it is still operating. Does that mean in 2001
they will be ensuring that it still meets best management practice of
1995, or as time goes on, you know, if there are improvements --
MR. VARNADOE: You kind of lose me now. The system's in
place. I think what he's gonna be telling you is it's still being
operated correctly.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think -- may I comment on
that? I think that's a very good point that -- it was my
understanding that the relevance of having this ability to have our
own inspection at least annually or more often was so we could ensure
that the operations were up to best management practices at the time
of inspection, not that we sign a deal today and whatever your --
whatever the current standard is remains the methodology for the next
ten years. It's my expectation that as we inspect, we continue, that
it's a revolving standard -- a revolving and evolving standard of best
management practice that lasts the life of the term of the contract.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my thought with -- I
agree wholeheartedly, and that's why I brought it up was just that
what's best standard now may still emit some odor. Two years from now
someone may provide some upgrade to that that works better. And I
would just like to -- if this contract is followed, I'd like to make
sure that Waste Management is held to having whatever the best of
today is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just in having minimum experience
with BMP, it's a dual protection clause. And basically what it means
is when they install at today's standards, if they go to expand the
system and the standards have changed, they are required through best
management practices for that new system to bring it up to whatever
standards those are. What BMP does not require is complete retrofit
of everything that you have done.
Just like today we talked to people about drainage
problems and how their houses and streets were designed at elevations
not acceptable today. Well, we certainly wouldn't require them to go
back and raise their houses or raise their streets even though we know
better today. In other words you don't retrofit for BMP, but at the
time which any construction is done and the engineering application
whatever is currently the best management practice is what has to be
followed. And that's what I think the distinction is. If you're
asking to enforce a retrofit when technology improves, that's an
unknown quantity and I think that would be unprecedented and probably
hasn't been done anywhere else.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, for example, when they
were to open another cell, that would be an appropriate time to see
what best management practice is for today?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Tell me if you disagree with
this. My understanding of BMP is that there is -- in other words, a
system that you had designed in '95 in '98 is not typically the best
management practice of the industry, then you're gonna have to design
that new one in accordance with BMP at that time.
MR. SMITH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Iwm not suggesting that the price
wonwt be reevaluated. That may be one of the things that you bring
back to us that this is the best management practice of the day and
herews our argument about why we need to raise rates.
MR. SMITH: Especially if there were a change in law or
something that required twice as many gas wells to be installed as we
do now or something that we canwt anticipate.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I guess I had misunderstood,
then, because I had -- I had looked at this as an ongoing retrofitting
obligation that we had that the door was open to annually or more
often re-examine the gas management system and determine if there was
a better one available and if so put it in place.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would suppose that would be
reasonable for them to do that if they said, well, we have to -- in
order to accomplish that we have to raise the rate to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And they can petition us for that
purpose.
MR. SMITH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we make a decision -- as
long as it operates the way it was originally designed and doesnlt
fail to operate due to its original design, I donlt think under BMP
you can require them to go back and retrofit, but you can, of course,
negotiate an improved system at a cost.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls my point.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: See, what I think is that in this
subparagraph B of 2.9, where welre saying that upon our teevaluation
we have the -- we have our contractor certify whether or not itls
operating in accordance with the manufacturerls specifications and all
applicable laws, I wish that at that point we also triggered a BMP
review and had the option of bringing that back -- raising it to a
higher standard, understanding that it might also raise the cost, and
we would have that choice.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words asking the
contractor, being someone in the industry, to tell us if therels a
better widget out there and what itls relative cost is to applying it
to our landfill. I donlt see that as being a costly measure.
MR. DORRILL: Youlre saying essentially that that would
then apply under that unusual condition section that we cited as being
if it is determined to be in our interest to retrofit or improve the
gas management system, and obviously that would be at your option,
then they could apply for a pass through or a special rate increase
based on our decision that, you know, a more modern or more innovative
gas management system presented itself and we were willing to pay for
it.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I raised the question
initially --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that thatls important now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- was because there has been
some history of an odor problem at Broward and Lee, and they
apparently are currently operating within federal standards and within
best management practice and still have some odor. All the way along
welve been told we control the odor to some extent. And I worry again
-- this is better than it was three weeks ago, but it still leaves a
wide open door that if there is a problem with odor and it meets those
standards, therels not much we can do.
MR. SMITH: I donlt think so. I think therels a lot you
can do. And again, as we said, this is a system that's gonna control
odors virtually all the time, maybe not in every instance. If you did
have an Andrew type hurricane, you're probably worrying about a lot
more than just the landfill. We're glad the landfill was there to
take that material. Frankly, Commissioner, we've been checking today
because we heard this allegation about odors at Lee County, and we
can't verify there's been a problem there. So as far as we know the
system is operating correctly. We'll continue to check that through
the Lee County environmental folks and make sure we're right on that.
But yes, we're constantly updating our -- not just on
odor, but on everything that we do for operation of the landfill. Not
only do we comply with the laws, we have our own internal manuals,
operation manuals. We send our employees to training -- annual
training either through government sponsored courses or more typically
through our own company sponsored courses which are a lot more
rigorous than even the government certification. So we're always
updating our BHP, if you will, and not just on the odor.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions on the contract
in general?
MR. DORRILL: I think, again for the purposes of the
folks watching at home, the whole gas management and odor control
section is new, and thus far we have been talking about things that
have changed. And the proposal in order to put more strings and
controls, if you will, on the gas management and odor control system
is one that requires, again, our selected environmental engineer to
certify and seal the original plans and subsequent construction in the
annual operation of the gas management and abatement system.
The carrot and stick approach that we're using is that
the incentive for them is to design, construct, and then operate an
efficient gas collection and abatement system. In the event that they
don't and they cannot have it certified for compliance and sealed by
our selected engineer, then that throws them into a technical default
issue, if you will. And what we have proposed for the stick is the
ability to withhold retainage on each monthly draw until such time
that they bring the facility into compliance and have it certified.
And the allowance there -- I'll finish, and then I'll answer your
question. The allowance there is that we can retain 10e of their
monthly draw.
Someone said, well, you know, quantify that for me. In
terms of the base tipping fee, Waste Management is going to earn about
$300,000 per month. In the event of a technical default on the gas
abatement system, we have the right to withhold $1,000 per day for
every month that they're in noncompliance with the gas abatement
system. And our rationale for that is that if you withhold their
money and withhold that 10e payment every month for noncompliance,
that you ultimately can get their attention to bring the system back
into compliance and make whatever corrective action or remedial
repairs or changes in operating practice that they need to make in
order to get their full monthly draw.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a question,
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is as you went
through that description it makes perfect sense to me. And I have a
question about what is technical default, noncompliance? Compliance
with what? And I guess what you're telling me is that the measuring
standard is the best management practice today or whenever the system
is designed. That's the standard that if they fail to comply with
that then we have penalty rights? That's my question.
MR. DORRILL: Correct. But I also apply that same
rationale to the annual certification requirement of that facility.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And annually when we're
evaluating, we're certifying the facility, we're measuring it for
compliance with 1995 best management practice standards.
MR. DORRILL: Or as changed if we incorporate your
previous comment about the ability to retrofit or to apply a different
mechanism or device if one were to present itself during the interim
period of time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And obviously that's my goal.
MR. VARNADOE: And then, Hac'Kie, Commissioner Hancock's
absolutely right, my engineer tells me, in how he described BHP. As
we start filling Cell 6 and you start putting in new wells, if there's
a better way of installing those or different diameter or different
pump system or whatever, then the BHP would require you at that point
in time one of -- on that new facility to bring it up to whatever the
latest technology is at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that wouldn't require you, as
I read this, and I don't hear you saying -- I understand changes. I
understand the next cell. I understand that if you make changes you
have to bring up to BHP as to those new facilities. My question is I
want you to have to look at best management practices and at least
offer us the opportunity to increase the fees, understanding that
there may be an increased cost. But every time we have that review,
whether it's annually or more often, that best management practice is
the standard of review.
MR. VARNADOE: We don't have any problem with updating
the system or making sure that we keep abreast. If that requires us
to go back and retrofit, we would be coming back to you to talk about
additional cost. But what I was trying -- I wasn't trying to avoid
the question. What I was trying to say is have an evolving process
where we are going through Cell 6, we're gonna be sinking new wells,
putting in new pumps, different pumps, and as the technology evolves
the BHP will require us with a date with the new things we're putting
in there. But yes -- the answer to your question is yes, we certainly
will be willing to do that.
MR. DORRILL: In either event.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple housekeeping items,
Section 5.2, annual adjustment of fee refers to the CPI. What CPI are
we talking about? Earlier today we had a conversation about the Miami
Metro CPI, our Southeast United States CPI.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we talking federal?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Federal CPI?
MR. SMITH: Yes, Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's
defined down at about the last third of the paragraph the consumer
price index for all urban consumers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's the one we eluded to earlier.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have any lower CPIs out
there?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 22, environmental term
of liability, 10 million. Mr. Lorenz, I'd asked three weeks ago if we
knew what the average -- when there was some sort of mishap, do we
know is there an average nationwide what the cost is?
MR. LORENZ: There's really no average. If you're
looking at kind of a petroleum products bill, you could be looking at
around $10 million. You could be looking up to 100 to 150 million
dollars for super fund type sites.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In your estimation is this 10
million enough? If there is some sort of -- would that be adequately
covered for what is likely? I realize you get to a point of
diminishing --
MR. LORENZ: We're not adequately covered if we've got a
-- we've got a huge spill in the landfill and we've got to contain
all the groundwater on site, we would not be adequately covered.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm wondering -- maybe Waste
Management needs to answer this. How did you arrive at the
10 million?
MR. SMITH: I believe that was in the RFP process. That
was specified. Let me just say too that we're one of the few
companies in the industry that can even obtain this insurance. And we
can obtain it. And we offer that, you know, to all of our clients
that we operate landfills for. I don't know that you could put any
number on average. Obviously we're gonna work really hard not to have
any environmental problem and not have to call on this insurance
because we're self-insured for a lot of what we do.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have one more, Commissioner
Constantine?
MR. LORENZ: We did contact with risk management when we
put the RFP together. And through their discussion with some insurers
that was the number that floated out, 10 million.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. The -- under 7.4,
page 25 and 26, these were a couple things I mentioned earlier. And I
don't know if I need an answer right now, but just before we take a
break maybe kick these around. Item C-i, and that -- under the early
termination, that makes us responsible for post-closure. I mentioned
that before. That concerns me because that's a big chunk of money.
Also under C-2, which is the bottom of the first paragraph on page 26,
"County shall also pay the contractor an amount equal to 10e of the
early termination payment." That just seems like an added bonus for
them for us leaving our -- just a couple things to consider as we take
our break. Hint, hint.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hint, hint. I guess I'm being
told that we need to take about a ten-minute break. And I have a
couple things I want to go over, but we'll do that when we get back.
Let's take a break for ten minutes.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the Board of
County Commission meeting for February 7th. And we're addressing the
Waste Management privatization of our landfill. Before we took that
break I had said that I had a few comments that I wanted to make.
Commissioner Hancock has said that he has a few comments that he wants
to make also that will not necessarily be his feeling of support or
nonsupport for the contract but just his ideas. And I believe Mr. --
I believe Commissioner Constantine has one also.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I have one question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have one question.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, let me talk about
what I have coming, and I've shared this with Waste Management
unfortunately only a few moments ago because these numbers were
constantly changing. But I want to share them with -- with my
colleagues. And again it's another spreadsheet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Must be a CPA.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You numbers people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know. What I have here,
and I believe Waste Management -- well, I know they have a copy of it
now. But this spreadsheet is as a result of our meetings last
Wednesday. And my concern of the high profit that I was addressing on
the 17th and subsequent to that has now been answered in the fact that
there's an administrative fee of $2 and some change that's included in
here that here before we were not aware of. But when I get to the
capital costs, the -- the capital closure, post-closure, gas
management --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. Can I ask -- the
reason you crossed off the top half of this is because your question
has been answered?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, yes. But we're still
gonna be talking about the asterisked items on the left-hand column.
So we're talking about closure, post-closure, gas management,
infrastructure, and the other capital is only 4 cents a ton. So what
I've done with this is last week we were talking about $4.90 a ton for
capital -- for all the capital costs, but that was based on 8,000 --
or 8 million and some change and some odd numbers in tons. MR. SMITH: Tons, tons.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And that was based on a
23-year contract. And now we're back to a 21-year contract that is
7 million tons and something, so I -- 7,416,000 tons. So I've had to
go back and rework the numbers so that we got the 28 million and
12 million and all the numbers we were talking about to do the
infrastructure to close the landfills, the two plus the gas management
and so forth. And what I get now are these amounts of $1.65, 49
cents, 33 cents, and $3.88 a ton for all these capital costs. And the
lower part of this work sheet these numbers add up to about $1.5
million a year, based on the tonnage going into the landfill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to follow you. Those
are the capital figures -- the capital costs you just described?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Based on the tonnages going into
the landfill.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The 237 and 96, the 246 and 97
and so forth across the top.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, I've applied a 5~ interest
factor, and I only used 5~ because 5~ was in the original proposal for
the $7 million that the county's retaining. So I'm well aware that
interest is not necessarily 5~ right now. It's more? From these
capital accumulations I have subtracted over the eight-year or
nine-year life that we're talking about here -- again the numbers that
you gave me last week that were -- start at mobilization of $409,000.
Gas management we talked about, closing the Immokalee landfill is $1.7
million, the transfer station and closing Cell 6, all those things add
up to right around $10 million. But the capital accumulation over
this period of time adds up to $15.5 million.
And I guess the question that I have to ask as an
accountant is what happens to the roughly $4 million that's a
difference here? And I know we had talked on the 17th somewhat about
escrowing some of these capital funds, but I notice that it's not in
the contract. And I don't know whether there was any discussion about
doing that, but that's the question that does remain. Your tipping
fee of $15.06 does include these costs. And my point is that you're
not going to use all the costs over the eight- or nine-year life.
There is some money leftover. That's point number one.
Point number two that I want to make -- and this is a
memo I just got this afternoon and read it. It comes from James
Hitchell, who is the internal auditor for our clerk. And I had him
look at the 1994 financial statements for the Solid Waste Department.
And this memo says that last year, 1994, fiscal year, we collected
$7,985,000 in revenues. We expended $5,060,000 in expenses, producing
a net income or an increase in our balance sheet of $2,924,000 and
some change. He furthered those on to talk about 206,000 tons going
into the landfills, and that works out to a tonnage of about $14 a ton
that we collected last year but did not spend.
Now, I know that we should have done some capital items,
and I know we probably had some equipment we should have bought and we
delayed because all this was going on, but I start backing out the
numbers, and from a $25 tipping fee, if I subtract the $14.14 a ton, I
get 10.86 a ton. And if I subtract from that the $5.42 that our staff
is telling their administrative surcharge on this contract, I get
$5.44 a ton to actually bury the trash. That's almost exactly what
this contract is. So I'm -- I really have to question should we do
it?
(Applause.)
I don't know how you -- how to tell you to respond. I
mean I just got that this afternoon. And Mr. Dotrill and I chatted
about it five minutes before the meeting. We had both just --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very, very persuasive.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- looked at it. But it is a
question. I don't know why our landfill people -- why our solid waste
people came in with, what is it, $20 a ton? Based on this, on actuals
for 1994 --
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we are more or less netting
over $2 million a year as this has indicated and we've operated that
landfill for 20 years, how come we have $7 million in the account?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we just raised the tipping
fee a couple years ago from 20 to 25.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying if we can net
$2 million a year, that makes a lot of sense, but we haven't been
doing it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus we're talking about raising
the tipping fee to $30, not just at 25. I'm just saying something
doesn't gel there. And granted, I have had zero time to review what
you just gave us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, well I've had very little
time, really.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to know if we're netting
$2 million a year, where's the quarter million we should have over the
last --
MR. RUSSELL: Well, we aren't netting $2 million a
year. The tipping fee has been increased slowly over time. Back in
1986, a schedule was set up of several sinking funds that we added to
every year and rolled over so we would have the funds to pay for
future capital costs and construction -- cell construction more than
anything. And that's why we have the $7 million we have now, because
not too far down the road do we have a double line or technology,
cells to build. And that's -- that's why we are where we are now.
I haven't had a chance to -- to look at the numbers that
the auditor came up with myself to pick that apart. And I can't tell
you what that is. I can only tell you that in the past on average
every year in our sinking funds that incrementally we've increased by
roughly a half a million dollars a year to get to where we are now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. And I guess
that based on the -- on the numbers that we've been reading and
hearing about, Mr. Lorenz is saying that in order to permit a new
landfill even eight or ten years from now and to get the cell
constructed, we're talking $20 million. Well, we only have 7 million
in undedicated funds. So obviously in order to accomplish that in
eight years or nine years, whenever, ten years, if it's possible at
all -- and I realize there's a real argument as to whether it's even
possible. But the point is that the $5.42 administrative fees that
are being added to this tipping fee are not going to generate an
additional $13 million. They're just not gonna do it.
MR. RUSSELL: No. In the proposals there was no --
there was no increment there for future construction. And that's why
our tipping fee and our proposal in that first alternate was $20 a
ton. And our current tipping fee is $25, but that recognizes the need
for land in the new line technology and so on and so forth. In the
future it's kind of a comparing our current $25 to our bid $20 is in a
sense apples and oranges. We did in our proposal have an alternate
that included recognition of those costs for new cells and land, and
that price was around $28.
Previously in our workshop we had included a fee
schedule that showed that we recognized -- we even in the past used a
20-year planning spreadsheet that every few years we were gonna have
to raise the tipping fee by a $5 increment. And we had a schematic in
that September workshop that showed us going to $30 in the next year.
And that's been the basis for our fee structure in the past.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you made the point that
I'm trying to make is that our tipping fee in order to generate the
$20 million that we need to produce a new landfill somewhere else,
that $20.70 a ton is not going to do it. We're gonna be still looking
at 26 or 27 dollars a ton in order to have a $20 million pile of
change --
MR. RUSSELL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- eight years out.
MR. RUSSELL: And that was the main reason we included
that alternate in our proposal, to point that out to everyone. But
the conditions of the RFP precluded that. To get an apples to apples
proposal from everyone, we reduced it -- tried to reduce it to the
same common denominator and did not include those costs for future.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So when we get down to the bottom
of this thing, the primary reason that I can see to move forward with
this contract, if we were to do so, is to eliminate the liability of
operating the landfill and the post-closure. And the only way that
we'll accomplish eliminating that liability is not to exercise the
termination.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct, absolutely correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, wait, wait. No, once
they're an operator they're in the chain. I mean once they have been
an operator under the laws -- and our attorney should advise us about
this -- there are ways to be liable under circlet. And one of them is
if you've been an operator you're liable forever, no matter who caused
the damage, no matter what. And they've got the deepest pockets.
They're gonna be liable. They're on the hook.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the contract reads that
we're responsible for post-closure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But post-closure is a defined
term. It means mowing the grass and checking the wells. And I'm told
that that's how much -- how much a year, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I think we factored less than $200,000 a
year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect the federal EPA
would say it's more than mowing the grass and checking wells.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not. It's a defined term.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Even in my discussion with Waste
Management last Wednesday they themselves defined the post-closure
cost over the 30-year period as $3.6 million. So that's about
$300,000 a year.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that we're talking
the post-closure maintenance is about $300,000 a year. But if we are
talking about the liability of managing the landfill, if we -- if we
terminate -- and I'm not gonna argue this terribly much because I
either make the point or I don't. If we terminate the contract and we
find subsequent to that that there is a problem with the material in
the landfill -- and I don't know why there would be if we've got all
these people watching the scalehouse, but if there's a problem that
then, yeah, I understand what you're saying that they will be forever
obligated based on the audit report and the assumption that we have a
certain minimal level of responsibility for what is in the landfill up
until the day they take over, and we arbitrarily -- or not really
arbitrarily, but through an environmental audit asses what the
responsibility is. The point is that if we terminate the only way
that we probably may be able to get them to address a problem, if
there is one, is through some sort of litigation which is just gonna
run the cost up.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Talking about liability being the
only purpose for this contract, you made a leap that I haven't made
yet. And let me ask the question. Our Waste Management Department
put a proposal together and came up with a fee. You went back in and
reworked their numbers and basically have determined that their fee is
bogus. Is that what I'm hearing?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. The fee is not bogus. If
the contract were to go the entire 21 years, they will indeed need
$15.06 a ton to do the closure, the post-closure, the gas management,
and the infrastructure. And they're --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I guess -- let me just go
ahead and ask the question if we operate that landfill for the next
eight to ten years at a rate of $25 or even $30 per ton tipping fee,
are we gonna have a pot of $20 million at the end of that rainbow?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know.
(Unintelligible comment from unidentified audience
member.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm asking our staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A1, are you gonna guarantee it?
Thank you.
MR. RUSSELL: Not in that short amount of time.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not -- that's the issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I'm going, because
-- and I was planning on this at basically the end because one of the
attractive reasons privatization appears strong to me is we've thrown
a lot of balls in the air. We have thrown in privatization. We have
thrown in alternate technology which is costly. We have now said we
are determined to seek a new landfill site which is costly. We've
thrown all these costs out there, yet we've thrown no funding
mechanism out whatsoever.
I'm looking at privatization, and I went through numbers
up one side and down the other of not increasing the fee or increasing
the fee to $30 and ending up at the end of eight to ten years with a
range after all capital costs have been done, after all closure and
post-closure have been determined, at somewhere between, depending on
25 and 30 dollars, 9 million and 20 million dollars. Now, I can go
through those one at a time, but it's based on what the contract
proposes. That's why privatization is attractive to me. I'll get
into it in detail later.
I want to know if the county operates the landfill, can
we tell our residents that at 25 or 30 dollars a ton we are going to
have between 9 and 20 million dollars to do all these wonderful things
we want to do in eight to ten years? That's my question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got 7 million now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not even counting that
7 million, folks. I'm not even talking about that yet. I'm asking
the question can we as a county under operating it in eight to ten
years have a pool of between 9 and 20 million dollars? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the fee of $25 to $30.
MR. RUSSELL: You may have the 9, but you're not gonna
have the 20.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we go to 30, we may get 97
MR. RUSSELL: Without looking at the numbers, I can't
stand up here and say for sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same question. Do you
anticipate that we'll have with the 5-32 or whatever you're adding on
as the contract is written?
MR. RUSSELL: The 5-32 is strictly administration. It
doesn't have anything to do with the future.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even with this contract, you
don't anticipate us having that either?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, you
haven't heard everything that I was talking about yet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking staff. Maybe you
can fill me in with what they can't. You asked that question, and I
want to ask the same thing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's an appropriate
question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to hear it from either
side wether we enter into the contract or not. I want to ask one
question before they answer that. You asked earlier where has that
money gone in the last few years wewve been collecting? One of the
places it went was buying the land to the north that we said wewre not
gonna use. I would think that would be one place where we could
recapture some of that money.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wewre not generating excess
revenues of $2 million a year. Thatws bottom truth. Wewre not
generating excess revenues at $2 million a year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask where the
$20 million figure came from? What are the big chunks that add up to
$20 million?
MR. RUSSELL: The double-line cell is 50 acres of
double-line cell, and the site development is about $20 million.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could be 25.
MR. RUSSELL: Thatws a sufficient size to build. If you
were to move there, particularly in 20 years, your volume based on
todayws number is gonna be about a half a million tons a year. So it
doesnwt make sense to build less.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thatls all by itself,
not including purchasing the lands or --
MR. RUSSELL: Right. Welve got a number roughly of
$7 million on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addressing -- you mentioned
something. Youlre correct. Under the current contract if we charge
the fees -- in this contract youlre right, that 20 million isnlt
there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Itls not there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is that in order for the
county to generate those funds -- welre currently charging $25. Welre
gonna have to up it to 30 or more in the next eight to ten years to
come up with that 20 million.
MR. RUSSELL: Thatls correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If, however, we have a contract
that does it at 15 plus a $5 administrative fee and we maintain a fee
of 25 or 30 and escrow the additional moneys, we do find 9 to 20
million at the end of eight to ten years.
MR. RUSSELL: Therels a differential there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In privatization, whether itls
this contract or another, on a similar cost to operate if we do not
raise tipping fees nor do we lower them, we escrow the additional
moneys not being spent at the end of that contract -- or Iim saying in
an eight- or ten-year time frame if welre at $25 we have about $9
million; if welre at $30 we have close to $20 million sitting there.
Thatls what the difference is. On the current contract itls not
there. But if we donlt lower tipping fees, we keep them exactly the
same and we escrow, then welre generating revenue source for the
landfill for new alternative source technology. And thatls the
attraction that privatization has to me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You hit the point actually right
on the head there. The -- if you look on that board right over there
and the figures welve been shown all along over an eight- to ten-year
term weill save $15 million. And where that comes from is the
difference that you just discussed, and that will go into escrow. And
you hit the point exactly right on the head. And youlye also heard
our staff say that under their proposal at the same tipping fee,
that's not going to happen.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I can't get to $9 million by
taking the conservative amount of 15, reducing all capital costs, and
assuming we have waste reduction technology that our current waste
stream doesn't even grow. In other words it doesn't grow one iota.
It stays the same it is now for the next ten years. If we really do
an aggressive campaign to reduce waste stream, we'd be lucky to
achieve that. That's bottom end. That lowest number I could come up
with by keeping the tipping fee the same is $9 million. With a 4e
growth it goes up to $14 million. And with a $30 tipping fee, it's 20
or plus, depending on the waste stream.
I'm sorry, it kind of came together in different ways.
That's where I was coming from. I wanted to hear all the input and
make sure I had my bases covered in arriving at that presumption. And
I didn't want to do it before public input either because I didn't
want anyone to feel that I'm so made up I'm not open to things. But
that is the sheer attraction of privatization for me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was encouraging, I
guess, was when you said that's what's appealing privatization whether
it be this contract or not. I would agree. Tonight's issue isn't
privatization. The issue is this specific contract. I think even if
we opt out of this contract and do not go with this contract, we may
well find it's worth it dollar-wise to have privatization.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously that's why we're here,
to determine whether or not this contract gets us where we want to
go. That is something I have not made up my mind on because we have
not heard everything we need to hear tonight yet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, let me ask
you one more question. On the numbers you developed, you said at some
point we get to $13 million. What tipping fee is that that you get to
$13 million?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At a $25 tipping fee, including a
4e growth rate, minus the capital improvement costs which were
estimated at $1.8 million at the termination of the contract on an
eight-year time frame, the balance remaining is, I believe, 13.7.
Where do I have it in here? Okay. We have 9.1 million at the 4e
growth rate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That combined with the 7 million
we have will give you the 20 million?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I didn't give you the
7 million or throw that in is because under this contract we would be
responsible for post-closure which is around $3.6 million. We
currently have 7 million sitting there right now. Again, I'm trying
to air on the conservative side of my numbers. I'm not trying to pump
it up and make it look good. I'm looking at worse case scenario what
are we gonna end up with. I can't say that's completely known, but I
didn't throw that $7 million in for the simple reason that, you know,
we need post-closure, and closure has not been addressed.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, the reserve we now have went for
plans for a new site, and the land we currently hold could be turned
into a post-closure fund and cover that.
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, may I address the
commission for a second? My name is Jim O'Connor. I'm from Coral
Springs, Florida. I'm from Waste Management of Florida. I guess this
has been a trying analysis to go through the numbers and determine
where the savings are, but I think -- I think the commissioner has hit
the nail right on the head here. I think what you've got in
privatization is a give-in, all right? There's no more whether or not
the county will provide the vehicle to raise the funds.
It's pretty simple. All you've got to do is look at the
excess over what it's costing the county today, and you're gonna raise
the money, all right? That's a give-in. Everything else that you're
looking at is an unknown. And that's the real key here, I think, to
privatization. What you're looking at today is you're looking at past
history and the accumulation of funds and trying to say if you stay in
the same mode will you get there?
What we're saying in privatization is that it's a
give-in right now that you'll accumulate at least $15 million in the
one part of the optimization program that allows flexibility for early
termination. And if it continues you'll save in excess of $55
million, all right? And if the county continues to raise their tip
fee to accumulate additional funds to go through the new siting
process, if that's what the county wishes, then in effect you'll raise
more than $15 million.
So I think what you're looking at is a give-in in
privatization and an unknown of continued operation. And that's not
any reflection on your staff at all. But, I mean, that's one of the
benefits of privatization is trying to difinivise (sic) your sayings.
And that's what we've done. And I think that's what the process has
done. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. And the only
-- the only point that I need to make based on the information that
Mr. Mitchell provided to me late this afternoon was that if we go
through the process of backing out these numbers, our staff over the
last -- well, over 1994, because that's all it addresses is 1994, but
our staff was able to bury the trash for about $5.40 a ton which is
the same -- roughly the same thing.
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, you know we debated figures
for well over a couple weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we have.
MR. O'CONNOR: The format that the figures have been
presented and the iljustration of those numbers and the request by the
county in the original RFP. But we too looked at the letter from, I
think, either the auditor or the clerk's office today. And I think if
I want to flip the numbers around for one second --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. O'CONNOR: -- if you take the $5 million of
operating expenses and divide that by the tonnage, you'll find that
that number is $24.40. Well, if that's the case your operating costs
are 24 -- are $24 and your tip fee is $25. You kind of -- now explain
to me how you get to this revenue factor of $7 million which would
equate to a tip fee in excess of $30. So all I'm saying to you is I'm
not disputing those numbers, but if you take that 5 million and divide
it by that tonnage, you'll soon see that the operating costs during
that fiscal period 93-94 was $24.40 plus some odd change.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that $5 million -- again
there's no guarantee that they were operating expenditures. We have
several -- we have several line items that are construction in
progress.
MR. O'CONNOR: That's the issue today. We've got a lot
of unknowns.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do.
MR. O'CONNOR: Municipal accounting is by no means a
pure science. There's not a pure allocation system as you'll find in
the private sector. That's just the way it is, and that's generally
accepted from municipal accounting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that.
MR. O'CONNOR: But the bottom line is that's the bottom
line. We can discuss it. We can turn it upside down. The reality is
this is a known, and unfortunately that's an unknown, okay? And
that's what you've got. And the flexibility that you built into the
agreement, I mean believe me, I think, one, you've got the ability to
optimize the facility which saves in excess of $50 million. You've
got the flexibility to continue your process on looking at new
technologies, given adequate time. We haven't talked about the time
needed, okay, to develop those new technologies or those new
approaches or the new site, if that's what it is. But believe me, and
I know your staff appreciates this, the lead time in those projects is
long. And one lawsuit, one administrative hearing can take what we
think is this normal time line of two to three years and turn into
infinity.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. O'CONNOR: And the reality is I can relate to you
counties across the United States who are still going through this
process today and have spent millions and millions of dollars. And
the one that comes to mind first is Sheboygan, Wisconsin. They went
through this process and ultimately ended up going to another facility
that another county had developed in the meantime, studied this
problem for 15 years, spent in excess of $22 million in the process.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which brings us back to the point
that I made early on that if we find ourselves in that situation we're
gonna have to expand to the north at some point, and we don't want to
do that.
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, if you would allow us and
then we'll be quiet and listen, we'd like to kind of go through some
of the other issues that surround the site so that too the public
understands what's in this document and some of the things that we're
affording them. I think that's only fair, because I'm not sure all of
them have read the document that's been constantly in a state of
movement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one final question.
Mr. Russell, we talked about the $20 million. What's that based on?
Have you looked at what other counties are spending that are opening
new landfills in the last five years, or where does that $20 million
figure come from when you said 50-acre --
MR. RUSSELL: That comes from our OCPH.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What did our people base it
on? On what did our people base that? On ongoing construction
elsewhere in the country or -- they had to base those numbers on
something. I'm wondering what it was.
MR. RUSSELL: I don't have the details on what they
based it on.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. O'Connor, I -- I have just
two real quick questions, and they're based on this contract itself,
and -- and they shouldn't be difficult to answer.
MR. O'CONNOR: Believe me, Commissioner, they're all
difficult.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it's not meant to be. On
page 8, 2.8, "Gas Management and Odor Control," there's a clause
that's been added here saying that the operating plan shall be
operational within six months after the date the contractor receives
all permits and so forth. Now, I understand that you can't know
you're gonna receive the dates on such and such, that you're gonna get
the permits on such and so, but I think for the benefit of ourselves
and the audience I'd like to have a general idea of, based on your
experience, when that would be.
MR. O'CONNOR: I'm gonna turn to my environmental
engineer. But I don't think -- what we're relating to once we have
the permits is the construction permits, okay? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. O'CONNOR: But the time to get the permits --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The six months I understand.
MR. O'CONNOR: Right. You're asking how much time do we
need to get all the permits in place.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the same thing we have
with getting permits for a new site. I understand that. But based on
your experience can you give us some sort of a time frame? And I know
it's an estimate.
MR. O'CONNOR: Right. I would venture to say that once
we have the plans done, which I would imagine would be a period of a
couple of months, okay --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. O'CONNOR: -- definitive plans that we would submit
to the State, and our hand holding with the State to walk it through
the process, I would imagine we're looking at anywhere from five to
nine months.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Five to nine months?
MR. O'CONNOR: Five to nine months to get the permits.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Including the 60-day planning?
MR. O'CONNOR: Let me get our vice president of
engineering to answer.
MR. DeBETTISTA: It's a little long. I would move that
five months time frame down to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you --
MR. DeBETTISTA: For the record, my name is Ron
DeBettista, Waste Management. I would say on the short side you're
looking at about three months to get the permit. We would start,
however, we -- I think Warren, Mr. Smith, has mentioned this. Upon
approval of this contract, we would immediately start design of the
system --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. DeBETTISTA: -- to save as much time as we could up
front, get that system designed, package prepared, ready for
submittal, so we could have it permitted in a shorter period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you would anticipate having --
based on this contract, then, you would anticipate -- and I'm using
the word "anticipate .... having the gas management system operational
within a year?
MR. DeBETTISTA: Yes, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's assuming someone
distracts Tom Reese during the permitting process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought about having him
bronzed, personally.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then I have one other question.
And this one we discussed last Wednesday, and I haven't heard it in
the changes that were discussed tonight, and that is the 10e
management fee on subsidiaries of Waste Management or brother/sister
companies.
MR. O'CONNOR: I think the document -- I'm gonna look to
my attorney and maybe your staff to affirm this, but I think one of
the -- we have two concerns here; that, one, we would kind of
double-dip the contract, and the other would be that we would take
that fee and use it in an anti-competitive --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To reduce the bid, yeah.
MR. O'CONNOR: Exactly. I think what we have submitted
is language that we would not do that. If we were the low bidder, we
would not take a management fee on top of that. So that should solve
both of your concerns. Is that correct?
MR. RAY: It is. I just observed to the County
Attorney's office that language.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What page is that on?
MR. RAY: That's at section 2.15. And there was the
change that was given to Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 2.157 Where? What --
MR. RAY: Commissioner, that was a language that was
added when the issue arose. I'm not sure it's in the draft. I'm glad
to walk up my copy which the Administrator and the County Attorney has
which has that language in there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess that's the question,
because as I was reading this over the weekend I didn't see it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, you asked us to do it. We
agreed to do it. And believe me, if it's not in there you have my
word on it, it will be in there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to verify that it
will be there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, the wording
here reads, "The contractor shall not receive the management fee if it
or any of its affiliates performs such processing services."
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, that's an add-on
that's not in the contract I have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that referring
specifically to C & D? Can we make sure that is specific?
MR. O'CONNOR: It's to any operation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's supposed to be any
operation.
MR. DORRILL: It would include also biomass or tire
chipping.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me add to that quickly.
Obviously, Mr. Weigel, our concern there was the squeezing out of
competition, so to speak. Is that sufficient to make sure Waste
Management does not involve themselves in that practice?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this particular sentence inclusion
doesn't so much discuss the squeezing out, which is discussed
elsewhere that you hear as it does in regard to them getting an
additional fee for services they provide through their own entities or
affiliates. But there is additional language in here in a different
place, and if you would like we can read it into the record in a few
moments.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR: If we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion on
those lines, too, that if we are going to have a public hearing by
October of next year, one of the other things that have been mentioned
in here was our responsibility for any third-party contracts that went
beyond a -- whatever our early opt-out date was. And it might be to
everyone's advantage not to have any third-party contracts extending
beyond ten years prior to October of next year.
MR. RAY: Commissioner, yes. That's right. In fact the
language that I think you're referring to was deleted in response to
that issue, so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that was. Are there
any other questions from the board?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I had one last one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I apologize if this was discussed
while was out, but one of -- one of my concerns, and Commissioner
Constantine had the same concern, was about the triggering mechanism
or the opt-out provision and when that would occur. And at our
previous meeting I had brought up the point that this -- these five
people would like to make that decision so that we had you write into
the contract that we could do that on October 31st of 1996. If I
understood you at that time, and also tonight I believe I heard the
same thing, it's immaterial to you at what point in the first six
years that decision is made and that we could in fact take up to --
actually, when we're minus 1 million tons in Cell 6.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everyone's in agreement that we
could actually in six months or six years or anywhere in between we
can make that point.
MR. O'CONNOR: Right. The October 31st date is really a
date that's more important to the county than us for public hearing
purposes. If in effect you want that so stipulated in the agreement,
that's not a problem. But the reality is you can terminate -- the day
after we sign the contract you can execute the early termination, or
up till six years you can execute.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that gives us a measure of
flexibility that should satisfy everybody as to this one particular
point. I mean, we've got a full six years or thereabouts to make that
decision. And that is a good measure of flexibility that I think is
very important.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Earlier tonight Commissioner
Hancock suggested for our purposes, not for Waste Management, we
should still require ourselves to still have a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. I still feel the
same way.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I commend you for that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We did elect to have all the
termination options that were previous -- that were in the previous
discussion, plus this October 31. MR. O'CONNOR: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So they are remaining in the
contract, and the others are being put back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we finished with questions?
Then let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: In advance of that I'll call two names. I
was asked during the break to clarify whether or not you're going to
allow testimony this evening on any issue pertaining to solid waste
and land filling or those issues that have changed or were
specifically referenced for change at your last public hearing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We had said ten days ago or two
weeks ago when we voted to have this public hearing in the evening
that we would limit the discussion and the public input to the merits
of the contract. And since that is why we're here tonight, I would
like to try to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or lack thereof.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we would like to limit the
discussion, and I would appreciate the public trying to do that. The
matter at hand is whether to award this contract or not. And that's
what we need to discuss tonight. I would prefer that we not get into
extraneous matters that don't pertain to this contract such as moving
the landfill. We've already agreed to do that, or that we want to try
to do that. And all of these other issues that pertain to the
landfill that do not pertain to this contract, if you would hold that
discussion, obviously we're gonna do that again on or before October
31st, 1996. So if we can move forward, Mr. Dotrill, I would
appreciate that.
MR. DORRILL: First speaker is Mr. Stewart. And
Mr. Pickworth, if you would stand by following him.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Stewart, we are limiting
speakers to five minutes as well.
MR. STEWART: Thank you. For the record I'm Jim
Stewart, speaking on behalf of the Golden Gate area Chamber of
Commerce. I have several comments concerning section 2.9 of the
contract. Several of my comments have been eluded to, but I want to
make -- make sure that the board is very familiar with these -- with
these issues.
Section 2.9-A provides that the gas management system
must be in place within six months of Waste Hanagement's obtaining the
permits for that gas management system.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's 2.8.
MR. STEWART: 2.8?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the contract subject may
have changed.
MR. STEWART: It's 2.8 and 2.9.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. STEWART: There's nothing in that contract that
requires the obtaining of those permits within a specific time. If
this contract goes out for 21 years, those -- the gas management
system could be extended out 21 years, theoretically. I understand
that Waste Management does intend to get it done earlier rather than
later, but the contract does not hold Waste Hanagement's feet to the
fire in any respect with respect to the gas management system. That
is a very important issue for those of us in Golden Gate because of
the -- the odors that we've been enduring.
The consulting engineer is the linchpin on whether there
is a compliance with the -- with the community standards that are
attempting to be imposed. There unfortunately is no meter out there,
no ascertainable standard that can be identified to measure over, so
the -- as an exchange for that what this contract does is it asks a
consulting engineer to look at the issue of whether or not a gas
management system has been constructed in the opinion of the engineer
whether it will work or not. I'm afraid that if the smells continue
despite the gas management system that the consulting engineer and
Waste Management will both say, Well, this is in the nature of the
beast. Landfills smell. What do you expect? And that causes me a
good deal of concern.
Section 2.9-C permits withholding of 10e of the payments
on problems until they can be fixed. Once fixed, no matter how long
it takes to get those problems fixed, Waste Management then gets 100
cents on the dollar of what was held. I think there should be some
provision where they permanently waive a portion of the 10e
withholding if they fail to complete it within some reasonable period
of time. I don't know what that period of time should be, but there
should be some provision that says that Waste Management needs to get
it done by a specific time or else they waive their right to the
return of the 10e.
I'd like to draw your attention to the last sentence of
the last paragraph of section 6.2 on page 7. It is the middle
paragraph of section 6.2. The last sentence provides that the
contractor shall be allowed to excavate and utilize all off-site
material that may be available from the facility, including material
made available from the mining of Cells 1 and 2. The contractor shall
be allowed to excavate and utilize all on-site raw material. The
definition of "on-site" that appears on page --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, 7.2?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 6.2?
MR. STEWART: Excuse me, 2.6.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'm in 6.2 and I'm reading
about insurance.
MR. STEWART: 2.6, 2.6.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jim Stewart, the dyslexic --
MR. STEWART: The definition of "on-site" means the same
or geographically contiguous property. There are 300 acres north of
the property where the Naples landfill is presently located that I
believe are contiguous to the Naples landfill. I don't think it's the
intention of this Board of County Commissioners to permit Waste
Management to excavate from those -- from those 300 acres, but I think
the technical language of the contract would permit that.
In addition in paragraph 3.4 on page 16 there's
additional provision relating to leachate may be stored on-site until
August 1, 1995. Thereafter, the contractor shall allow on-site
storage of leachate. Again, leachate -- on-site again -- the term
"on-site" is used again, and that is -- could make reference to the
north 300 acres.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But that north 300 acres is not
zoned.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we just need to get it on
the record that Mr. Stewart's concerns will be addressed. That 347
acres will not be a part of --
MR. DORRILL: Also been advised that there's a separate
legal description that's referenced in the exhibit, and it's not
contained within the legal description.
MR. STEWART: But the definition of "on-site" does
contain contiguous property to that within the legal description.
That's the problem. It's not the problem with the legal description.
The legal description is fine. It's the lack of -- of exclusion of
the north 300 acres.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. O'Connor, will you stipulate
to that fact?
MR. O'CONNOR: Yes, I will. And if I could,
Mr. Stewart, on the expeditiously moving the gas system for the
installation or developing the permits where there's no specific
language, let me tell you what's implied here. We're going to be --
we're going to have to comply with the permit of the facility, which
requires us to manage the gas, all right? And if we don't manage the
gas effectively at the site, we'll be in default, all right? So I
mean the damages in default on this agreement are much greater than I
think the language that says we'll try to do it in six months. I mean
we are required to expeditiously do this to maintain permit in good
standing. And therefore, we will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. STEWART: If I may, I'd like to do a concluding
statement. Okay. I believe that it's penny wise -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up pretty
quickly?
MR. STEWART: Sure. I believe it's penny wise and pound
foolish to enter into a contract and then believe that our solid waste
management problems are over. I think we need to aggressively go out,
find another site, another site that would be 1,000 to 2,000 acres,
far enough away from everybody that we don't create problems. And I
think the Golden Gate community would feel a lot better about this
contract and about what's gonna happen if the more assurances were
given that this is gonna happen. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pickworth. And then Ms. Bisbee, are
you still here?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: People still don't understand
that's exactly what we're trying to do is buy some more land and move
the landfill. And yet everybody's comments still are hinging around
that point and trying to ask us to do that. We've already committed
to do that. I mean what's the problem?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, we have.
(Applause.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One round of applause, just one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, Commissioner. For the
record I'm Don Pickworth, representing Adington Environmental. I'll
be brief. I have two main points. Seems to me there's two problems
here. One is the contract, and the second is the whole thing of what
we're doing, if you will.
With regards to the contract, I -- I would just say at
the outset I hope that at the conclusion of this tonight, even if you
are convinced that signing a contract with Waste Management is the
thing to do, you won't sign a contract tonight or approve a contract
tonight, because if there's anything tonight's meeting has
demonstrated to point is that there's still a lot of rough edge's to
this. There's still a lot of things that say, well, it says this but
we all mean this, and I'll give you zibiday (sic), the whole gas
management thing.
Everybody walked away for two weeks thinking that
post-closure gas management in accordance with federal regulations was
part of the initial contract, but we ended up with it didn't get in
there through -- nobody saw that, or in the rush or whatever. And I
hope you will do all of us citizens the honor of, you know, something
like this that's a $3.6 million item according to the discussion I've
listened to tonight. And I would hope that when we're talking about
money like that that at least you will insist that the final
draft-ready contract, no matter how many more meetings it takes, be
presented and thoroughly looked at and thought about before we sign
it. I mean, that's just good business.
I'll throw out a couple -- just a couple more clauses.
It was -- I was paying attention to the discussion that -- that
Ms. Mac'Kie was in earlier which dealt with the best management
practices, and what do you do if the county wants to insist that maybe
some things be done better? And I call your attention to section 5.5,
because what that says is you get to tell the contractor to prepare a
change order and he gives you some costs and some figures and some
profit numbers, and you get to decide whether you want to do that or
not, and that's all. That's what it says. If they say it's 28e or
32e profit, you get to say we don't want to do that, and you pay them
for their design costs and everyone walks away. It doesn't happen.
That's a fixable problem, but it ought to get fixed,
because I don't think that's what you want. I think what Ms. Mac'Kie
is concerned about is a valid concern. If all of these practices
don't work and we need to do something, nobody's saying they shouldn't
get paid for the cost of doing that, but you ought to be able to --
again, it's a question of who's gonna be in control? It's your
landfill, and you ought to be in control.
(Applause.)
You know, another simple one, the 10e for the
contractor, which I guess they have the language. Some people don't
have the language. Again, let's get a draft-ready contract and let's
all look at it and be all looking at the same one and think this over
so we know what we're signing.
Those are contract problems. They're -- they're
fixable. Let me tell you what I don't think is fixable and what the
real problem with this is, and that is that we're a long ways from the
RFP. And, you know, the attorney's nature is to disagree. I just
don't agree with Mr. Weigel, and you can't throw words like "optimize"
in here. It's real clear that what you're doing here right now is
negotiating a short-term contract. I mean that's what you've all said
you wanted. That's what you told the people you're doing. You're
doing it without RFPs and without bids.
And I think the bottom line of this is maybe
privatization is a good idea. I was listening to some of the numbers
before. But at the very least bid it, and make sure that you can then
go to the people and say we have got the best contract that can be
gotten. And you don't have that. You started with an RFP for
optimization. And what we're trying to do now is patch all this
together because we all recognize now that that whole RFP and what it
asked for wasn't even what we wanted.
So now we're trying to go back and put this thing back
together again. And that's the fallacy of all this. And you can't
fix that through fixing the contract. You need a very specific
request for bids or proposals based on what you want. And then let
contractors come in and give you a proposal. I don't see what gets
hurt by that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about that. I
see one thing that gets hurt by that is the possibility of what I said
before about everybody seeing everybody's cards already, so is it a
fair process? But setting that one aside, we do have -- from back in
September, '94, an apples to apples bid where Adington and Waste
Management bid on a 108-foot landfill, and Adington's bid was 25.5 and
waste managements was 14.9. I can't see anything to lead me to
believe that as far apart as Adington's bid is from Waste Management's
that if we re-bid this we're gonna come to a different conclusion.
MR. PICKWORTH: Ms. Mac'Kie, number one, you accepted
and you did this on the basis of the alternate bid, and the difference
was not that big there. When you start taking and start equivasizing
(sic) numbers, I think you'll find that right now we could probably go
through a process if we wanted to just stand here and play number
games and show you that in fact as you stand here right now Adington
was really the least expensive bid.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's so difficult. I mean I
understand there's lots and lots of statistics, but --
MR. PICKWORTH: But this isn't in, that isn't in, and
the other thing isn't in, and the scalehouse, and this and that, and
when we get all done with all of this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your bid is $10 more than Waste
Management.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 66~.
MR. PICKWORTH: It was for a lot more time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not gonna stand up for
Adington, but I will say this bid was for optimization, not for a
straight ten-year period.
MR. PICKWORTH: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. My point is
measuring -- balancing the damage that's done once the envelopes are
open and everybody's seen everybody's cards, balancing that with an
analysis of how wide the spread is between Waste Management and the
next lowest bidder, what are the odds that we're gonna come up with a
better deal than we've got? And when you balance that with everybody
having seen everybody's cards, that persuades me that we have the best
deal we can get.
MR. PICKWORTH: Well, I know I'm out of town, but I
would like to respond to that with two quick points. Number one is as
far as seeing everybody else's cards and everything else, we're
dealing with -- that's the whole point. We're not dealing with what
anybody's seen anybody's cards on because we're talking about an
entirely different thing, basically a ten-year operating contract.
Secondly, it would seem to me that our obligations here in this county
is to make sure that we get the best deal for the citizens of the
county, not who saw whose cards.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't get to hear the last
part. Don't worry about what?
MR. PICKWORTH: Not worried about who showed what
cards. If you decide to go out for a ten-year contract, you're
starting from scratch on that with your specifications.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me say on the record for
Mr. Weigel's sake that we feel this contract is what we -- what we put
out for an RFP, what your firm bid for, for what the other two firms
bid for, and -- although we have made some adjustments in the
contract, this is what we wanted in the first place. And I will say
that for the record.
MR. PICKWORTH: I appreciate that comment. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Bisbee and then Ms. Tuff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Bisbee.
MS. BISBEE: For the record, I'm Nancy Bisbee, president
of the Golden Gate Estates area Civic Association. You've heard my
problems before, and I still feel that the county should take -- keep
the landfill and not let it out for privatization.
I have one question that is in my mind. If they go to
108 feet on about Cells 1 and 2, will they put it on that? If they
do, what's it gonna do to the leaching?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This contract calls for
completion of Cell 6, if we elect to terminate according to that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 1 and 2 would be a later phase.
It would have to be mined, reclaimed, the cells would have to be
reconstructed and lined before reused. It's not a situation if they
increase the height of stacking it on top of 1 and 2. That isn't
gonna happen.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna
-- we're gonna take one more speaker, and I'm gonna have to take a
break because the court reporter has to make a phone call to get a
replacement. She has to leave at 10:00 o'clock. So we'll have one
more speaker and we'll take a short break.
MS. TUFF: You could have taken the short break first
because I have to go to the bathroom really bad, but that's okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you get that on the
record?
MS. TUFF: And I'm speaking as a private citizen. I
live in Golden Gate. I'm gonna pretend that you are my sisters for
just a moment. It's kind of strange.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's very strange.
MS. TUFF: But if my sister comes to me and she says,
I'm planning to get married, which is a contract, a serious contract,
and she says, I'm a little uncomfortable about some things about him,
but I think that we can work it out. I'm going to say, I don't mind
you getting married. That's a good idea to be married. You may be
better off if you're married, but maybe you better look at that spouse
and consider what you're looking at before you enter into it.
And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know about you, when I
got married I didn't have all the answers but I'm darn glad I did it.
MS. TUFF: There are some that may not be able to say
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're gonna take a short break
for ten minutes.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for -- yeah, it's still February the 7th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not for long.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move forward with the
landfill privatization contract. Mr. Dotrill, we're in the public
speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. Following Mr. Perkins I have
Mr. Siesky.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins, we are addressing
only the contract.
MR. PERKINS: I promise to be good and not to hassle
anybody, and that includes anybody from the East coast.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Citizens for Constitutional
Property Rights.
The contract: I'm going to spin through this. I take
exception to certain things, first of all, whereas the county has
determined that in the best interest of the citizens of Collier County
to engage in services as a private contractor. Big brother doesn't
need to dictate to me how I'm gonna spend my money. I usually do it
the other way around.
Landfill gas: This contract says that you're in
partnership with whoever happens to get the contract and that you get
the chance to take and maintain and keep all the gas. Nobody has
mentioned how much money do you intend to make off of the gas, because
Waste Management in Pompano is not over there doing to for free.
They're making money at this, otherwise they wouldn't be sitting here
tonight hustling you.
Waste Management wants to use a flare. That means
you're gonna burn up the penny that you could be saving. It's about
$100,000 a month. That's all right. It's not their money.
The Immokalee landfill and this landfill out here, the
Naples landfill: It says they're gonna close the Immokalee landfill
when it fills up or when it's full. Well, it would be to their
advantage not to fill it up, just to keep it right on the edge. Then
it would be constantly open for the next 51 years. The 51 years is
because of the fact that if you're talking about a 21-year contract,
you're also talking about a 30-year maintenance on the gas and on the
landfill. That means that Collier County is gonna be obligated right
down the line whether that Waste Management is here or not.
The cover material and the employees out there:
Apparently there's gonna be a lot of people that are out of work and a
lot of people that are gonna lose money that are on the payrolls at
the present time out there. Waste Management I know has lobbyists
because of the size of the company, and they already know what the EPA
is gonna take and stick down our throat.
Now, we have in here -- we have contract changes, and
that's going to take and open it up to a whole new ball of wax.
"Contractors shall not knowingly accept any solid waste from outside
the county at the facilities." Well, who's gonna monitor that? And
if you want it to, if they need it, the material in Pompano to
generate electricity, would it pay then to haul it from here over to
there and maintain these landfills in a limbo situation so that we can
take and subsidize the trash and garbage to Pompano for their -- so
they can make some bucks on this thing?
The closure costs: We're obligated for closure and
we're also obligated at two landfills for 30 years apiece. This is
people, facilities, equipment all the rest of it. Nobody's mentioned
this tonight on this thing. It's in here. That's a 30-year deal.
Now, there's something else in here that I can't figure
out, and I'm ignorant on the whole bit, leachate collection system of
Naples landfill to the county's off-site waste water treatment
facility. Apparently we're gonna pipe water from one of our waste
water sources to the landfill.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, just the opposite.
MR. PERKINS: The opposite?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to pipe leachate to
the waste water treatment plant. We're required to do that under the
current permit.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. In other words we have not got any
pipes in-ground or any of the rest of the stuff?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think quite yet, do we,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No.
MR. PERKINS: Any numbers on it? Because we're talking
about money predominately, the money that we're gonna spend, the money
we don't have, the money that we could make on this thing, and we're
not going after it.
I just about completed everything here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good.
MR. PERKINS: Just the changes in the law. That's the
only thing I'm afraid of.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're all afraid of changes in
the law.
MR. PERKINS: See, I wasn't so bad tonight.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. SIESKY: Good evening, Commissioner. I'm here
tonight -- Jim Siesky, for Linda Harszalkowski and Naples Recycling
Resources. I want to address my primary comments to paragraph 2.14
and other comments related to some of the discussions this evening and
try to put it in the "Philadelphia" story mode. It's a
multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank question.
Collier County government should: (A) encourage
recycling, (B) be impartial or neutral regarding recycling, or
(C) encourage recycling. I think that each of the county
commissioners will agree that the obvious and appropriate answer is
(C), encourage recycling. It's the responsible thing for government
to do, and it's the economic thing for government to do.
It's economic because in this instance the recyclers'
margin of profit relates to that cover material that is sold to the
county landfill. It's economic because every ton of landfill debris
that does not go in at the rate of $15 per ton is a savings to this
county of that $15 per ton.
Over the course of a year at $100,000 -- 100,000 tons of
material, that's $1.5 million of savings for the county if you mandate
that the contractor purchase the cover material from the recyclers.
If you do not there will be no incentive, the recyclers will go out of
business, and it will cost you $1.5 million per year.
I've provided earlier this week -- or last week I guess
it was, a proposed paragraph 2.14 for the County Commission. If you
don't have it, I have another copy here for you. It does just that.
It mandates the purchase and provides the incentive for the recycler
to stay in business.
Second comment is regarding tarps. One of the
representatives of Waste Management mentioned an 18-hour rule. First,
I think that assumes that the garbage gets to the landfill within 18
hours after being deposited in the home garbage receptacle. Second, I
think it's probably assuming it's Wisconsin and not Naples where the
average temperature is in the neighborhood of 90 degrees year round,
excepting this time of year.
The third comment is regarding bidding. In my tenure as
school board attorney, we had the opportunity to re-bid something on
occasion from an error that was made in the bidding process or some
other reason. Without fail the re-bidding resulted in a lower price.
The reason for that was, as you said, Commissioner Hac'Kie, the cards
were on the table. Now, that may not be to the advantage in this case
of Waste Management, but it is substantially to the advantage of this
county if it is re-bid.
(Applause.)
Right now Waste Management has no competition.
My last comment is related to the dollar analysis by
Commissioner Matthews and the dollar analysis by Commissioner
Hancock. I think there's a significant question created by both of
them, and I think it demands further analysis. Commissioner Hancock,
your analysis may be affected by the CPI increase, I don't know.
There may be other cost consideration that go into the analysis that
you made. But I think that they should be considered and this board
should make an informed decision. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna
have to ask you to keep your applause down. We -- we have sort of
promised the stenographer that we'll be out of here by 11:00. Miss
Philson has said we don't have any tape after midnight. So I'm gonna
ask you to keep the applause to an absolute minimum. I know some
people are gonna say things that you like to hear and others are gonna
say things that you don't like to hear, but it does take time when you
make these applauses.
Ms. Harszalkowski.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Wilt. Glenn Wilt, if you
would stand by, please.
MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: My name is Linda Harszalkowski, and
I own Naples Recycling Resources. I'd like to speak to page 11.2.14,
which relates to cover material.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear.
MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: I'm sorry. My name is Linda
Harszalkowski, and I own Naples Recycling Resources. I'd like to
address page 11.2.14. Unfortunately, I believe there are two
contracts floating around and I have only seen the newest one about
five minutes ago -- or about five to ten minutes ago. And I feel that
we should have gotten that contract January 31st when we were all
supposed to get it.
Since 1991 the cover material for the landfill that was
produced by the C & D recyclers has been 100e used. There is only so
much fill that can be produced from the C & D waste stream. However,
this market allows us to recycle all the other products that are
considered construction and demolition. And since 1991 we have never
failed in an inspection of our material. The county currently does a
lab report on this material either weekly or monthly and sends the
analysis to the State. I have those reports with me if you'd like to
see them.
Currently we are recycling. And our cover material
contains 75e dirt and Modern Recycling contains 70e which means that
our product is better than theirs. The county has always mandated the
use of materials since we started this project. The county litter
ordinance has closed off all other avenues to use this fill material.
We have no other place to go with the material.
David Russell came to you at the last meeting and said
the C & D recyclers saved the county money. The county did not need
to use up its budget for the cover material because the C & D
recyclers produced inexpensive material. Recycling competes with land
filling. The EPA and the Environmental Defense Fund asks us to always
use recycled materials first to save our natural resources and our
earth. This request doesn't sound like a trend to me and the
thousands of other worldwide community that are doing the same.
Recycling is a liability to Waste Management. It costs
more to do. The profit margin in landfilling is much greater than
recycling. As recycling improves, less material will be landfilled
and less profits Waste Management will be making. If our C & D
projects are eliminated, it would mean 100,000 tons of material will
again go into the landfill yearly and Waste Management can bill the
County an additional $1,400,000 yearly.
Your staff proposal stated that tarping the landfill
does not cost any more than using the C & D fill material. All five
commissioners agreed that use of the C & D fill material would be used
instead of tarps. In the past the contractors in our landfill mining
and C & D recycling were all included in the process. The use of
tarps will eliminate the need of these projects and create an odor
problem for the people who live in this area.
Mr. Siesky has forwarded you a paragraph for you to
review. This paragraph, number one, protects any C & D recycling
company that might want to establish a business in this community. It
protects the county from a contractor who would use chipped tires for
cover material. Currently Waste Management does not use a tarp in the
Lee County landfill. It uses chipped tires. Waste Management -- a
landfill fire with chipped tires as cover material could be
devastating to this community not only in odor and fumes, but an
inability to put out fire for days.
There should be very little reason to use a tarp even as
an emergency. For the past five years several days of cover material
have been stockpiled on site so that they have enough material ahead.
At 2-14 the words "best efforts" and "facility's needs" don't mean
anything if it's in the best interest for Waste Management to put us
out of business. Waste Management, if they control the facility at
the landfill, will be receiving a 5e management fee just for their
C & D recycler to be on site.
I would really appreciate your consideration in this
management. It means the difference between my business and not
having one. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Wilt.
MR. DORRILL: And then Dr. Stokes.
MR. WILT: Good evening, commissioners. For the record
my name is Glenn Wilt. First of all, to begin with let me compliment
all of you people sitting up there, plus the staff, for the amount of
hours and diligent work you've put into all this. You've all done a
really hard job and done a lot of good work trying to solve this
problem. However, we still have a problem the way I see it. There
are a few problems.
Some of the points I'm very seriously concerned about,
-- some of the points have been covered by the speakers, but I want
to reemphasize them. The primary concern, of course, I have -- the
first one is the synthetic tarp cover for the face of the landfill.
The county's currently using the practice of using cover fill on the
face. I see no reason for that to change.
As I stated the last time I was here, and I think
Commissioner Hancock emphasized it again this evening, they say if
they only have an 18-hour window frame that face is open, that's all
well and good. But if your garbage is only picked up once a week and
then it's dumped out, it's already a week old when it goes on there,
then they're gonna leave it open again. It's just like opening the
garbage bag the next day after you've had trash in it, you know. The
smell is there. I think it should be mandatory that they use fill
cover on the face, not the tarp.
Next, I'm not a CPA or a bookkeeper, be first to admit
that. Therefore, I must rely on people like the chairperson here.
She understands the dollars and cents of this contract. And when
she's concerned about the dollar figures, I guess I better get
concerned also.
The next item -- Commissioner Hancock stole some of my
thunder on this one. When you get into page 3 of the summary, I don't
understand why Waste Management does not agree to escrow funds to meet
future obligations. It seems like a reasonable approach to me to put
a little money in the bank each month so you have funds that are
needed for identified future needs. We're talking about a current
tipping fee of $25 a ton, their fee of $20.70 a ton, we're talking
about a difference of $4.30. What does that mean to an average
household? I think figures I've heard before and in the past here
that's something like 90 cents a household per month. Really, what is
90 cents a household when the county's gonna need money to go on to a
new site and do bigger and better things? Why not put it in escrow?
Do we wait three years and then raid the bank for lump sum all at one
time or do we plan for future needs?
The other thing I've heard in the contract this evening,
on page 1, "whereas to optimize the landfill," page 24, Option A and
then Option B, and then we talk about we're gonna make a decision
October of '96 -- or no, maybe it's gonna be six years from now and
which board's gonna make the decision? This all leads me to one
closing point that I'm coming up to. Being an old army man I've heard
this term used before and I'll use it again: This reminds me of the
United States government going out with an RFP to obtain a horse, and
by the time they get finished they ended up with a camel.
I don't see any need to rush to the judgment of this
contract. We've been on it two years now. It may take two more
years. Everything has changed since the RFP went out. I've been to
every one of the meetings. Everything has changed. Roll it over.
We're trying to put on a little Band-Aid in this side and a little
Band-Aid in this side.
And I've listened to lawyers tonight. One lawyer talked
to another lawyer, and a commissioner talked to a lawyer, commissioner
talked to another commissioner, and you use words -- and you're
confusing each other about what's in the contract. If you can't
understand it, why don't we throw the bloomin' thing out?
(Applause.)
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Wilt.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Colletta.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Colletta is after Mr. Stokes.
DR. STOKES: I'm C.A. Stokes, 2355 Kingfish Road,
Naples. As you know, I have no objection whatsoever to privatization,
whether you do it by contract or by bid as Commissioner Constantine
suggested. I think that's an interesting idea. I've no objection to
Waste Management. They are a very competent company. I own stock in
them at a loss, I regret to say. But this contract does not provide
the flexibility for volume reduction.
For some eight years now I have appeared before this
commission to argue for eliminating landfill, not perpetuating it.
This objective was recognized in your other RFP which has now been
answered by three qualified companies and completely ignored. But you
can have both. You need landfill for some years, at least until you
can have a volume reduction operation in place. You may need it
beyond that because there may be a non-putrescible residue from volume
reduction to landfill.
It is unreasonable to consider getting out of the
landfill business overnight, but what I would like to suggest to you
is writing a contract that allows for an early pursuit of a 70~
volume-reduction objective and elimination of landfilling putrescible
materials. That's landfill as we know it, putrescible materials. If
you're landfilling non-putrescible materials, that's a different ball
game.
Now, as this contract is written it's a death now for
volume reduction and an almost certain perpetuation of landfill for
the life of the youngest person in this room. No volume reduction
company will take you seriously. Why should they? It's eight years
before you can start to consider volume reduction, three to four years
to argue and fuss over it, that's eleven years down the road. I'm 79
years old. I've been appearing here for eight years. I don't know
whether I'll make it. If you're seriously interested in volume
reduction, then make a contractor put out bids for privatization that
works with your objective, not against it.
There's room for Waste Management to extend its services
to this county. They can work with you on your long-term needs if you
structure it that way. It's not at all unlikely that Waste Management
headquarters may go out and buy a volume-reducing process company.
They already own one compost company. They may be in the business of
offering land -- volume-reduction services. But here you are locking
yourself into finding and permitting a new landfill while ignoring
volume reduction by default, not necessarily by your intention.
It costs money to go from septic tanks to sewers, but we
wanted to do it because it's a better way. If a better way is found
to handle solid waste, it will cost more than landfill and you can
count on it. But do you know the cost of landfilling long-term? It
may include hauling to the north of Immokalee somewhere along with all
the other costs, or it may include hauling to another county as Lee
County found out. They couldn't permit another landfill.
Now, if the tipping fee for volume reduction is $25
higher than whatever landfilling arrangements you make, what does this
really amount to? It's 4 to 6 dollars a month more per average
household. Is this too much of a price to pay for eliminating
landfill as we know it?
So I would simply urge you to restructure this contract
to fit your real long-term needs and objectives, and then reconsider
it. If you can't do that, perhaps it is not the best thing to do
now. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Stokes.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Colletta, and then Mr. Delate.
MR. COLLETTA: For the record my name is Jim Colletta.
I'm president of the Golden Gate area Chamber of Commerce. We have
196 business members. I'm not here to beat up on you tonight. I
really believe that you are sincere about moving the landfill. I wish
we -- our sincerity was a little tighter time frame. However, getting
into the contract -- that doesn't count as beating up on you I don't
think, does it? I'm doing all right, Tim?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for not pounding on the
podium tonight.
MR. COLLETTA: Speaking to you tonight on the contract,
the contract you have in front of you is flawed. That's obvious. The
county staff and Waste Management have made an attempt to address the
landfill problem through the proposed contract, but we are still
falling short of fulfilling the interest of Collier County residents.
As our representative it is now up to you to accept or reject the
proposed contract that is now written.
I have talked to each of you in the past week, and I
listened to you speak tonight. And one way or another I have heard
each of you address -- express concern, genuine concern, and since --
on this contract. It you're still having a problem with this
contract, please follow the dictates of your conscience and vote this
contract down. I am sure that with a little more time and effort we
can all arrange to have a more favorable working situation. Thank you
very much for your time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Colletta.
MR. DORRILL: This should be John Delate and then
followed by Michael.
MR. H. DELATE: Is it all right, if I go first? Mike
Delate. Just like to touch on a few brief topics here that haven't
really been hit yet. The first one is I haven't heard yet how much
the buy-out will cost the rate payers at the end of the eight- or
nine-year period, if I could get an answer for that. Do we have an
answer? And are we now getting closer to the county's figures?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mike, you can use your time to
talk or you can use your time to ask questions.
MR. H. DELATE: But I'd like to get an answer so
everybody can hear.
MR. DORRILL: Option A is $4,490,000. And Option B is
$6,186,000.
MR. H. DELATE: Okay. What would that be per ton, on a
per-ton basis additional?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, if you have these
questions, you can ask the staff and let us go on to the meeting.
MR. H. DELATE: Okay. If I could have them bring it up,
though, I'd like everybody to hear it. I've already looked at the
numbers and they're now getting closer to the county's figures. MR. DORRILL: About $2 or $3 a ton.
MR. H. DELATE: $2 and $3 a ton that will have to be
added on through those eight years if we agree to have the buy-out
clause.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe it's already included
in the $15.06.
MR. H. DELATE: So we're up to 16.79 or 18.04 a ton.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Post-closures, not closures
included; isn't that correct? Post-closure's not in that somewhere
between 2 and 3.5 million dollars.
MR. H. DELATE: Post-closure plus the unamortized
costs.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That shows that too.
MR. H. DELATE: Okay. So we're up to total of 16.79 a
ton, closing out at nine years, and Option B the eight-year figure is
$18.04 a ton. So we're getting closer. Is it really worth that
difference to the rate payers?
The second topic here is regarding odor control. Odor
control hinges Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-701.400(10).
If you look at that section in the code, and I encourage you to read
it, it's very vague and nebulous as far as what odor is and what they
have to do as far as controlling odor. We have no standards in this
contract that I can see regarding odor, what an odor is, and how
offensive it gets. How is the consulting engineer going to determine
what an offensive odor is? How is he gonna determine if that gas
management system is working effectively if he has no standards to
judge it on? Then there are no penalties for Waste Management for
exceeding these standards that don't exist. So I see a big problem
with that. The citizens of Golden Gate and that smelling area around
that dump are gonna be subjected to probably what's happening in Lee
County and the tremendous odor problem they have there with the
Gateway community.
The third topic I want to touch on briefly here is the
need for the 50 acres of lined cell, the future landfill. This
doesn't necessarily pertain to the contract, but it could be tied in.
That 50 acres assumes that there will be no reduction in the waste
stream. So we're precluding any alternative technologies in
determining that we're gonna need 50 acres at the end of eight years
at a cost of $20 million. So I don't think we're comparing -- in
addition I don't think we're comparing apples and apples when we say
we need 50 acres in eight years versus what is needed at the existing
facility at the end of eight years and how much will be needed to
handle our waste stream.
That's all I have for right now. But hopefully you'll
consider those topics when you vote on this contract. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Delate.
MR. DORRILL: John Delate. Mr. Keller still with us?
MR. J. DELATE: For the record, John Delate. I must
admit I don't know a whole lot about landfill engineering, but I do
know that my garbage begins to stink when I put it on the curb. If I
pull open the Hefty bag and have to stick something else in it, that
odor comes flying out, and that's pretty bad. That's called anaerobic
degradation. So it stinks when it goes to the dump -- or landfill as
you want to call it. The 4,500-sqaure-foot tarp will release a lot
more odor than my Hefty bag. You don't need to be a scientist to
understand that. You pull that up, the gas -- the smell has to go
somewhere. It's gonna go up. But I guess that one extra year of the
life of the landfill is more important than the containment of the
odor.
Now this is not a trick question, Mr. Constantine, but
does the Gateway community have a neighborhood landfill watch group
considering that the Lee County emits an awful odor and greatly
diminishes their quality of life? And that's documented. I wonder,
do they have a group that gets together and discusses that? And
you're gonna guarantee us here -- tell us -- tell the people that
you're gonna control the odor? Let's be honest with everyone. Let's
be frank.
This contract everyone has said is a 21-year-plus
contract. If you intend to close the landfill prior to that, anyone
can see that in signing this contract you would not want to opt out
from a fiscal standpoint. The incentives are too great to stay, and
the disincentive to leave it too great. But each commissioner and the
county manager has publicly stated that they desire to close the
landfill within ten years. Why then in the name of rational thinking
would you sign a contract that contains serious financial penalties
for leaving the site prior to optimization?
If you want to buy out in eight years, then reissue an
RFP for eight years and have two years extensions on it. There's no
rational reasons why we shouldn't do it. Plus, in one and a half
years you will not have a permit for a new site, so how could you make
a more informed decision at that time? And if we make a decision up
any longer than that, it's gonna be a new board and, therefore, we've
precluded what we set forth here which is this board was gonna make
that decision.
Another major issue -- it's been touched on, but it
needs to be reiterated. Do you seriously want to be known as the
board that precluded a more comprehensive recycling program into the
21st century? If you agree with this privatization, that's what
you're saying. Recycling is a fad. It's not even worth our
interest. Recycling -- this contract is a total disincentive for it.
Just for example, there are hundreds of restaurants in Naples that
don't recycle anything that could get involved in a big program. But
our contract precludes that. You could withhold 90e of the pay, it
doesn't matter, you're not gonna make up for that.
I went to -- over today to the conservancy and looked at
their information on recycling. I found very interesting things.
Anyone can read it. There's ample information on it. Recycling saves
natural resources. It saves energy. It reduces pollution. There are
recyclables well beyond the one and two plastics that we do here. You
can certainly recycle cardboard; eight million tons per year are done
in this country. The mixed paper, including all the junk mail and
magazines that we receive that we throw out and stuff up the landfill,
and as I mentioned restaurants. We need an incentive clause in the
contract that says the less you put, the less you pay. It's
ridiculous. Again, we're moving into the 21st century and we don't
want to do any recycling.
I'm gonna close with a statement that is wholeheartedly
my opinion and solely my opinion. It should not reflect on anyone
else here or anyone else in the Golden Gate community. But to me the
attendance tonight is indicative of the sentiment of the public, from
what I feel. That is the big boys have already won. I guess it
really was a done deal from the start. Two other provisions
recommended by the board at the January 17th meeting, one, the precise
odor control regulations and penalties, and two, recycling incentives
were all but ignored. In my opinion this is symbolic for the disdain
of the public, especially from the citizens of Golden Gate.
Approximately two years ago the director of the county
Solid Waste Department resigned his position. Since that time several
other staff positions have been vacated and, along with the director
position, have never been refilled. Perhaps it is a mere coincidence
that the entire landfill operation has deteriorated during that same
period. And after the direction and support were withdrawn, is it any
wonder that a call came for privatization?
On the Loveday -- Lytel show on 2/2/95, Jeff Lytel
said, "It seems that staff is driven. They feel beholden to do a
contract with Waste Management. It just seems like everyone is hell
bent on doing something with these guys. I often think that there
just seems to be no distinction." I think Mr. Lytel had it right.
So I guess, in closing, privatization really does mean
privatized profits, publicized risks. I feel sorry for the people in
the Lee community. You're next.
(Applause.)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller, then Mr. Mast.
MR. KELLER: George Keller. I'm voted the official
spokesman for the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association; however,
Nancy Bisbee is the president.
This thing has gotten way out of hand, to be honest with
you. And it just -- it just doesn't seem possible -- I've been
attending these meetings for some 14 years, and it doesn't seem
possible how this thing snowballed to the point where we're working on
little parts of a contract when we don't have the concept set up in
our mind where we really want to go.
We talk about money. I've been in this county since --
for 26 years. There was 35,000 people in this county when I got
here. In the last ten years we increased many, many times. It's been
a very fast increase of population. We have saved $7 million on the
fees that have been charged to the people to take care of their waste
up to today. And if we could do that with the lower population and
the population increase, then we sure should be able to go and have
ample money in that reserve fund to take care of any future waste --
waste management problems, whether it's recycling or whether it's
another landfill.
So the -- we can't say -- I don't know why we say that
we have made mistakes in the past and we have to make a big change to
privatization. This privatization has -- if you go over the figures,
you find out it don't amount to a hill of beans as far as how much
it's gonna save the average homeowner at the end of the year. And as
a terrible -- the very fact that you've gone over this contract so
many times and pull little pieces apart and haven't made a decision as
of now means there's a lot of other things to be considered in this
contract.
This contract is not good for the general public. And
we shouldn't -- we should forget about a contract and forget about
privatizing the landfill and go on the way we were and make our plans
as to when we want a new landfill, what year we're planning on, and
how we're gonna get the money to go and do the job. We don't need
Waste Management or anyone else telling us how to run our show. And
if we don't have the people in our department that can run our show,
let's get them. We don't need a private company to go and tell us
what to do.
So let's get on the ball and let's solve this problem
for the people and not for any particular company. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Mast.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mast, then Mr. Henning.
MR. HENNING: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Tom Henning, president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association.
I'm gonna look at this contract as a 20-plus year
contract because I do see that we are gonna have this landfill
operation in the Golden Gate area 20, 30, 50 years. So I do have
concerns that -- that we need to protect the people, especially about
the gas management system. And, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you tried to
address that in our last public hearing, and I don't know if you
really got what you really wanted. It does -- here on the gas
management it has some federal mandates that are not enacted at this
time.
It also has a DEP or Florida State statute which, by the
way, in 2.8 that section is not correct. That's supposed to be
62-701400, and that pertains to gas management or odor control
systems. And in the odor control systems what it does say is it's not
to -- it's not to exceed lower explosive limits for gases at or beyond
landfill property boundary. So what it's saying is it has to be below
explosive levels. That's -- to me that's not acceptable to the Golden
Gate residents around that area. And we need something in this
contract to do this.
Also, about the -- holding the 10~ out of if they do not
meet these requirements and after they fix them they get their 10~
back, this reminds me of what I do with my son when he doesn't make
his bed or doesn't clean his room up. I take his Sega away. So it's
a constant battle. I'm telling you it's a constant battle what I go
through to make sure his room is clean and make sure his bed is made.
And we don't -- the citizens of Golden Gate doesn't want the county to
have a constant battle with that. If you could hold money -- or just
forget this contract, hold money and do something for the Golden Gate
citizens and not give it back to Waste Management.
The ground covering -- temporary ground covering is
unacceptable to the Golden Gate residents. As Wilt has said, it's
only common sense when you open your garbage bag after it sits in the
garage for three days or something it's gonna smell. I've had maggots
in my garage, you know, after sitting three days when we had recycling
pick-up on a Saturday, it was a total of a week, you know, it sat out
there. So this temporary cover is not acceptable. And, Commissioner
Hancock, I hope that you have the ability and I hope you will see that
that is removed out of this contract. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nelson, then Ms. Maas-Zichella.
MR. NELSON: Good evening. For the record my name is
Doug Nelson, representing the Collier Building Industry Association.
I come to speak not specifically about this contract or any other
contract but more importantly to the tipping fees that contractors pay
at the -- at the dump. As you know, obviously, controlling -- with
this contract the cost that the county will pay Waste Management if
those fees are structured then by default the tipping fees that we pay
to the county are gonna be covered.
We -- I had asked specifically for a definition of
"inert material" to be added. I asked for a definition of "C & D
material" to be added and an incentive to be put in there so that
there would be recycling of C & D if it came in with other types of
trash. Without these incentives in this contract or any other
contract that we may end up looking at in the future, you raise the
cost of inert dumping 400~, or in the case of C & D possibly 25 -- or
actually more than 25~ which is the largest component. You put that
into real terms and dollars, on one contractor's large commercial job
in Collier County that could be $100,000 of additional trash fees to
build that one building. In the case of another contractor in Collier
County, his costs could be changed between 2 and 3 million dollars in
two years without the definitions of again "inert" and "C & D".
Now, let me state for the record additionally that as we
ask for these things Waste Management has provided them in the revised
contract that you guys just received a couple minutes ago. We are
very happy with that, and they responded. But I would -- I do have
two requests. First of all, that if you go into -- and I need some
feedback on this --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doug, just so you know,
you're a little ahead of us. We haven't actually seen the revised
copy of the contract.
MR. NELSON: I'm sorry. Typical. I saw them being
handed to the County Attorney here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're saying you are satisfied
with the inclusion of this definition?
MR. NELSON: With these two requests that I gave here.
A lot of these things have been talked about, and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep it down, please.
MR. NELSON: We talked about this earlier when we talked
about 2.15 when Commissioner Matthews and Constantine looked at the
issue regarding the fees and whatever. So there's no surprises here.
There's just -- there's -- what I'm looking for is in the contract
with these two changes. First of all, I would like to request to
delete the last paragraph of the --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Ladies
and gentlemen, would you please let the man finish? I mean you had
your chance and did your speaking and he was very quiet. So please
let him complete what he has to say. Thank you.
MR. NELSON: On page 3, construction and demolition
debris, I really believe it was an oversight on the changes that we
requested. The last paragraph, "Mixing of construction demolition
debris with other types of solid waste, including material," I would
like that sentence to be stricken. And I do that based on a letter
that we got from the Environmental Protection -- Department of
Environmental Protection which defines -- gives some specific legal
ruling regarding you can do this.
Now, to state that that's kind of been done on paragraph
2.15, page 12, the last line, Waste Management has agreed to that. "A
contractor shall accept loads of construction demolition debris which
contain de minimus quantities of material." So in other words they've
agreed to that. I just wanted to make sure that for clarification we
can take that last sentence out of "construction demolition debris."
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What you're saying is there's a
contradiction in the contract between this definition and --
MR. NELSON: I wouldn't call it a contradiction. It's
just not real clear. And I'd like it to be stated for the record that
they will accept C & D material the same as we are today. And that's
really what we're looking for. Are you gonna continue to receive
C & D material as they are today? And if we can get Waste Management
to agree to that, then we don't have a problem. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. NELSON: As we have heard from previous speakers,
there is no incentive and there is no legal recourse if they decide to
change the process on C & D material. And that's a very expensive
proposition for the construction industry.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that something that Waste
Management wants to respond to?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. O'Connor or Mr. Smith.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: While we're on it someone's got
to help me with why I have a new contract.
MR. DORRILL: The reason for that is very simple. The
board specifically said they wanted the contract as near possible and
in the condition that it was in to be part of the printed agenda. The
agenda goes to the printer every Wednesday. The contract that was in
the agenda was the contract in the latest version. It was available
in the agenda last Wednesday. During the interim period of time the
chairman and I went with Waste Management at least twice, and I know
they met with some of you as late as yesterday afternoon, and they may
have attempted or may have agreed to changes as a results of
subsequent conversations or negotiations from last Wednesday.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can somebody identify the
differences between what's in our packet and what we've just been
handed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My contract was from February
21st, the one I reviewed. I don't know if this is after, before, the
same, and what the differences are.
MR. DORRILL: The one that they brought with them this
afternoon, the one that you have, they can tell you what additional
changes are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we address this when
the public is finished. Okay. Mr. Ray, do you want to address
removing this last sentence from the definition of "construction
demolition debris"?
MR. RAY: Yes, I do. Let me just explain. This
definition of "construction demolition debris" is straight out of the
Florida Administrative Code. This is the law. This definition is
what the Florida Administrative Code says is construction demolition
debris. I've seen this letter from DEP -- it's addressed to Linda
Harszalkowski -- that I think refers to the fact that there might be a
single tire or a piece of furniture in C & D material, and DEP
apparently is saying that we are not gonna, you know, take this
definition, you know, so literally that you couldn't account for, you
know, a cookie wrapper or a tire in the material.
So recognizing that -- and these are part of the changes
that you received today. We are trying to be accommodating on these
things as they are coming up. But we provided in the contract that it
-- de minimus quantities of material that are easily separated from
the C & D would be allowed to be received and would be part of that
C & D waste stream that would go to the C & D processing area. It
also recognized that the county running the scalehouse would make that
determination. And that reference --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's a no. What you're
saying is you don't want to remove that last sentence?
MR. RAY: No, I don't, because that's the law.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't either.
MR. RAY: I can't rely on this interpretation, so I --
I've tried to accommodate his concern. At the same time we need to
obviously rely on our permits, applicable law. I can't rely on some
letter that was given to a third-party. And that's kind of a box I'm
in. I'm trying to be accommodating, but at the same time I can't do
that. The State definition is very, very clear on this point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, you were saying no,
that we can't remove that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I will state that for purposes of
clarity it does not help things to change the operational definition
of C & D debris, but rather to provide for the operational requirement
in the contract itself which is what the Waste Management addition is
in section 2.15. C & D debris is specifically defined. And then they
go on to say that if it does have a minimal amount of other material
in it, they will continue to utilize it as stated in the contract. I
think it would be wrong to change the statutory definition of C & D
debris for purposes of this contract alone and the definitional
point.
MR. NELSON: That's fine. I understand we can't change
state law. The issue here is currently if -- what if my dumpsters or
anyone in the industry's dumpsters comes into the landfill, there's an
incentive for the county to recycle that, accept it as C & D at a
lower rate than trash, and deal with it. Under this contract there's
no incentive for Waste Management to treat it as C & D and mess around
with it. They can just take it to the top of the pile and treat it as
trash.
What I would like is a statement from Waste Management
saying, We fully intend to operate the dump as we are operating it
today to continue to maximize the use of C & D material at the dump
site. And that would satisfy my concerns, because I don't -- we don't
have to worry about the rate structure at that point, if that makes
any sense. And I can tell you that in private they've agreed to do
that.
MR. RAY: Let me just say -- and I'm not sure what
exactly was being said there, other than we're basically agreeing to
do that. We said that we're gonna take in de minimus quantities. We
can't change the State definition. We don't control the scalehouse,
the county does. We provide a specific provision here that the county
would direct whether it was inert, C & D, or solid waste as to where
it went at the site. I think we've accommodated this issue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's really not Waste
Management -- it's not up to them? If we're operating the scalehouse,
we decide it just like we've been deciding it forever?
MR. RAY: Yes. You are directing where the loads go.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there's no reason to think
that we will do it differently? You need us to tell you that we're
gonna continue to do it the same way we as always have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel -- let me ask
Mr. Weigel as a legal interpretation does this contract address this
issue?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it does. I think that we run
into a difficulty if we put in the contract that we are going to do it
as we already are doing it, there's no standard you can get a grip on
right there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Weigel, for
clearing it up. Let's move on.
MR. NELSON: And here I want to state for the record
that we asked for that. It was put in the contract. There's still
some gray areas as there's gonna be with anything. Again, when you
make your vote on this contract or any contract, make sure we're
looking at all these issues. It was interesting to me from the
construction industry that this is a major, major dollar issue that
was never brought up by anybody. It came to me almost as -- as a
fluke. So thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Haas-Zichella, then Mr. Krasowski.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Haas-Zichella.
MS. HAAS-ZICHELLA: Yes. Even if this was the best deal
that there could be, wonderful savings, you have no community support
for it, zero. There isn't one constituent that has come out and said,
"I really think you're doing a great thing here." And so just for
that reason alone that's enough to say no, because no one really wants
it. If we're starting out a relationship with a contract that was
promised to be available to the community seven days before the public
hearing, and here we are this evening still getting changes and new
printings, I think that speaks volumes about what we can hope for in
the future.
You know, Mr. Hancock, you're a land planner. And I'm
sure there's nothing that a planner likes better than a clean slate to
work with. And when they have to incorporate all these thorny little
problems into the whole picture, we have water sewer, privatization
that we're talking about, affluent land purchase, recycling, all these
things. We should be developing a vision first and then choosing is
privatization the vehicle we want to use to get there?
I think that privatization -- using the word
"privatization" is a little bit of a myth also, because in fact there
is not really privatization. This is a contract. Telephone company
is privatization. There's competition. There's all kinds of other
things that go on. That doesn't apply to this.
So the linchpin of this agreement is the operating plans
and the permits. And there's no definitive conditions right now. If
you put your vote -- a yes vote to this, there are no definitive
conditions that you are tied to. It's all contingent upon what
happens in the future. They can make all the promises that they want
about what they would do and so on and so forth, but throughout the
contract they let you know that the agreement is what you are
stipulating -- no matter what's said here, no matter what else, we
agree to this, we're stuck with it.
Another thing is we have not had a waste water treatment
manager of this department that would know where all the cobwebs would
be in this industry. That's who should be reviewing this contract.
In all due respect to Mr. Lorenz, that's not really his speciality.
So for us to rely on the bid of someone that's not even in the
industry, I think, is a little foolish. You know, we're building our
house on sand here.
MR. DORRILL: Well, wait a minute. That's just a crack
personal remark.
MS. HAAS-ZICHELLA: I didn't mean to be personal.
MR. DORRILL: If you want to make ill-mannered remarks,
make them to me because I don't care. I've sat here for --
MS. HAAS-ZICHELLA: No, please. What I'm trying to say
is -- no, I am not faulting Mr. Lorenz. What I'm saying is this is
not really his speciality. This is not what he does for a living.
There are all different technologies. Waste Management, Incorporated,
is far more knowledgable about these issues, and it's unfair to expect
that department to compete on that level. That's all I'm trying to
say.
(Applause.)
I mean we have not filled that position. And I am not
faulting anyone in particular. And I'm sorry if I offended you. I
certainly did not mean to.
MR. DORRILL: Didn't offend me at all. I just said if
you want to make remarks, address them to me.
MS. HAAS-ZICHELLA: Well, no, it's not -- I'm not -- you
know, there's just a number of issues. Now also, I never saw -- I
didn't read Adington's contract, but this contract is full of hidden
costs. And this is really a problem to the people because we would
like to see something that's very plain and very simple. And every
page is another -- you know, it just goes on and on.
Earlier this morning you were talking about hazardous
waste. Well, we retain all of the responsibility and all of the -- we
still retain the contract for hazardous waste, yet we pay $25,000 to
Waste Management for that pleasure of keeping that, I guess. I don't
know exactly what it is. They talk about individual fees that will be
collected. I think that's problematic, especially considering the
item that you had on the agenda this morning.
All of section 8 of this contract really should be read
and read again. They talk -- again, it's just verbal promises.
Section 4.3, the full permitted capacity, it just goes on and on.
Super Fund is gonna be renegotiated this summer. Bob Dole has that on
the agenda, or so he says. So, you know, there's just too many things
to even begin to address. But I really would hope that -- the
performance bond, we are paying the full cost of the performance bond,
which we're paying assumably from April 1st. So for two-thirds of the
year, $21,000, we're paying for the performance and the payment. Now,
we may have requested the performance. The payment bond is what they
want, and we're gonna pay the cost of if it. This just goes on and on.
On page 7 I have one question you might answer, if any
of you know the answer, page 7 of the February 1st contract. That
would be 2.4. What is the charter?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could you be more specific?
MS. MAAS-ZICHELLA: 2.4, it's midway in the "Regulatory
Compliance." Does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't even see what you're
talking about.
MS. MAAS-ZICHELLA: It says, "The contractor shall also
comply with the provisions of the charter and all ordinances of the
County as amended from time to time." Also, the regulations are cost
plus 10~. I mean that to me is absolutely insane also, you know, to
make 10~ on regulations. Just tons of things. But if you could just
tell me what the charter is, I'd appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel could you tell us what
the charter is?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, this is a provision that if this
would be a chartered county they would be complying with provisions of
the charter. We are not a chartered county. If we were a chartered
county, they'd be complying.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if, God forbid, we should go
and -- this contract would prevail over such an event should it occur,
most unlikely, but should it? Is that what we're saying?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. The contract would prevail change in
law of this nature.
MS. MAAS-ZICHELLA: We have a lot of problems here.
Please say no.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Krasowski, and then Ms. Barsh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many do we have left,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I keep getting more, but I've got three
after this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Call me Ishmael. If you guys are gonna
sell captain Ahab over here on this contract, I think you're in for
big trouble, okay? We're all in for trouble.
But to get more serious about things, I haven't seen the
contract, okay? I've been following this thing for months, years I've
been monitoring the solid waste issue. And tonight you're considering
voting on approval of a document that I -- you haven't -- I haven't
had the courtesy of being able to review. Now, I've heard a few
things about what changed here and there, but I don't know if that's
an accurate representation of it. And I think I have a right if you
intend to pass this thing to be able to review it and comment on it.
I even think there's some kind of requirement in the process that
citizens are allowed to have some input.
I don't know. I have a lot of things to say. I read
this document, you know, the one I got last week, which is not the
contract anymore, and made a whole bunch of notes, spent a lot of time
on it, as other people spent a lot of time on doing this. And I came
up with a lot of things, many of which have been mentioned by the
Delates or Kate and a number of other people. It's kind of
interesting to me that I haven't seen one person come up here and
speak -- a citizen speak in favor of this contract, you know?
Okay. Now I see Ms. Hac'Kie shaking her head.
Apparently the people that she communicates that are in favor of this
don't find it necessary to participate in the public forum or
discussion on it. They operate behind the scenes. And they'll impose
this kind of stuff on us who take the time to evaluate it, they're so
knowledgeable and well-connected that they don't have to come here and
talk to you.
You know, about eight years ago there was a movement to
build an incinerator here. I always bring this up, but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Krasowski, can we discuss the
contract -- the merits of the contract?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I am. I am. I can appreciate how
you might be concerned I might wander a little bit, but I'll try not
to do that. But I was looking through this box of junk I had at
home. It's kind of junk now. It's interesting. I have like the
history of Solid Waste Department at my house for the past like ten
years. It's amazing all the studies and different processes and
various committees have developed, you know, over all this time.
But the point I'm gonna -- I'm gonna make tonight is in
this folder is the economic number cruncher. It's economic review
committee that was formed by Commissioner Arnold Lee Glass, sounds
like it was like 100 years ago, right? It's right after the
revolution. But, you know, what was found -- and I have it written
here was that the income from the generated electricity of the
incinerator was over-exaggerated. And then the expense of running a
landfill to purchasing more land, that was over-exaggerated.
people had the appearance that the incinerator was cheaper than
operating a landfill.
Now, after this economic review committee, bankers,
accountants -- Mr. Keller was one of them, there were about five or
six accountants from the community came in, then we had Jim Jiles sat
on it. They sat down there. I sat in on the meetings. I wasn't a
member. It was like technical stuff, you know, professionals. And we
-- it was cleared up as far as what was reality and what was a
promotion, okay? So I see this happening again, okay? I see a Solid
Waste Department providing us with a response to an RFP that is, as
Kate said, not as professionally prepared in that they did not have
the resources of their competitor, Waste Management.
Who in our economic resource of the county has analyzed
and deciphered what is in our Solid Waste Department as far as their
ability to propose? Have we had a fiscal financial analysis of our
proposal that's -- that's -- that meets the standards of what we
require here in the county? I think Commissioner Matthews has pretty
much done the most economic review, and then recently Mr. Hancock
started doing some work on it.
But, you know, before you go ahead and do this, if you
don't kill this deal tonight as I suggest you do, I would think -- and
then even for any future actions you take, we need a financial and a
managerial audit of the Solid Waste Department. And this does not '-
I'm not trying to cast dispersions on Mr. Dotrill or Mr. Russell, but
they alone, I don't believe, are qualified to do the full range of
work that's needed here, okay?
So I'll just -- I guess I had my five minutes. So I'll
end with that. But I strongly suggest that this -- you know, we pick
the other options that have been mentioned here instead of going with
this contract.
(Applause.)
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh, and then Ms. Jenkins.
MS. BARSH: I'm Frances Barsh, and I'm a member of TAG.
TAG is concerned with the use of good money. TAG is concerned with
good agreements from government. TAG is concerned that these
agreements be in the best interest of the people of the county and the
efficiency of the county. We do not think that this is a good
agreement nor a good contract.
Privatization in any area is a serious step and should
be carefully evaluated before any commitments are made, for if the
terms are not appropriate, it can open a Pandora's box. "Penny wise
and pound foolish" is an old and wise adage to be alerted to in this
instance. Mona Charant's (phonetic) article debunking the myths of
recycling and landfill crises followed the Wall Street Journal article
on the same issue, and I would like to quote from her article. "The
public's belief in a garbage crisis, writes Bailey, help WHX, formerly
Waste Management, Incorporated, and its competitors to pass along huge
price increases to municipalities and other customers."
Another wise axiom is, "Fools rush in where angels fear
to tread." In this case we urge you to be angels. Please vote down
this contract. It is not good. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Barsh.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Jenkins and then Mr. Kipp.
MS. JENKINS: Hi. My name is Barbara Jenkins. I just
want to address a few items on the contract. The first one and maybe
the most important one is groundwater monitoring. Everybody in the
county should be concerned about groundwater, no matter who has
control of the landfill. And when I read it and I saw that the county
was gonna split sample with Waste Management, I think that's fine, but
I think the county should also take their own samples. And I'd like
to see the board set up specific dates of when they will split samples
so that we're sure that that's being done.
The second item that I'd like to address is Waste
Management if they get the contract says they should not knowingly
accept out-of-county waste. I think the county currently has some
kind of system or program where they check to make sure that
out-of-county waste doesn't come into the county. They have a card or
something that they give businesses. I'd like to see that --
something in the contract saying that Waste Management will do the
same thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're managing the scalehouse, so
I would imagine our same people would be handling the same program.
MS. JENKINS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that not true, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: You have to have an established commercial
account to be able to enter into the landfill area, and that's the
rationale behind it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: The third thing that I saw was that Waste
Management would be the one to construct and operate the gas
utilization system, and I do question why that can't be put out for
bids.
Another thing, as far as subcontractors, Waste
Management if they get the contract will get a fee to manage these
subcontractors. But if I'm reading it correctly, the county is the
one that will be responsible for any costs or any other liability or
expense relating to the activities of county subcontractors. If Waste
Management receives a fee, I think that they should maybe be held
accountable for the activity of those subcontractors.
And my last question deals with daily cover. I live
close -- very close to the landfill. And I know one night the odor
was extremely strong. And we called Solid Waste and found out that I
guess it was sludge from the water treatment plant is buried in that
landfill, and it was not covered, and that's why the odor was so
strong that particular night. And if they take and they put this tarp
over that kind of waste, I don't think that that's gonna in any way
help us with the odor problem out there.
And my last comment is: Before you sign, please make
sure all the i's are dotted an the t's are crossed. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kipp is your final registered
speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Kipp.
MR. KIPP: I'll be very brief. Hi. My name's Keeth
Kipp. I just want to try to clarify a couple things. First, earlier,
Commissioner Hancock, you were talking about adding on money to try to
-- well, the millions of dollars required for buying new land and
building new landfill. Well, there's actually 17 different categories
the Solid Waste Department uses. There's actually a menu board system
that they use. And the tipping fee which most people pay into is for
trash, the $25 per-ton tipping fee.
A few years ago we had a C & D contract that was bid
out, and the bid that came back was, I believe, about $16 per ton. At
that time the Commission stated that staff brought it back and
expected the rate to drop down about $18 or so, but the Commission
basically said, well, we need to keep rates up, maintain the rates we
currently have in order to kind of build up our funds, in order to
pursue land purchase in the future. It was a wise decision. But the
difference between that tipping fee and the money that's going to the
county is $4 per ton.
Well, staff guesstimates they're gonna receive about
125,000 tons of C & D material per year. That's gonna equate to about
$500,000 per year. In the course of ten years, that's gonna make $5
million. So there's a lot more ways than just that 250,000 tons
that's coming into that landfill in the lined cell. There's
400,000-plus tons easy coming into the landfill, inerts, sludge,
commercial debris, garbage from the city, little bit of everything.
So when you look at the landfill, it is a money generator. There is
money everywhere out there.
My next concern was with Commissioner Mac'Kie and her
reference to putting cards on the table concerning bidding contracts
out. Several years ago -- I'll use an example with the county here --
we were negotiating with Waste Management a contract to pick up
multi-family unit recyclables from condos and what not. For years we
had a single-family program but nothing for condos. And it was a --
very uncomfortable for everybody. Anyway, we had negotiated a price
of $2.29 per unit, per multi-family unit. And we brought that back to
the commission and it was rejected and they told us to bid it out.
Well, staff bid it out. And the contract came back --
and I'm just guesstimating on numbers. I'm not quite sure on this.
But it came back Waste Management won the bid at $2.09, I think. And
they can clarify that. That 20 cents per month is gonna equate to 240
per year, multiplied by 40,000 multi-family units is gonna come in at
$100,000 a month or $500,000 -- excuse me $100,000 per year, or
$500,000 during the course of the whole contract. And that is just a
very small hauling contract for a multi-family unit recyclables. And
that was the system that was -- they put their cards on the table.
I would submit that if you did bid this contract out,
chances are Waste Hanagement's gonna win it. But I would hope that if
it is bid out that it would be done so not with the inverted scale.
The inverted scale, in my opinion -- you're well aware of this -- is a
version of flow control guaranteeing waste. But at the same time --
some of the other speakers have said this -- it's a disincentive to
recycle, even to reduce waste.
Staff may come back before you in five or six years and
say, Look, we have a waste reduction plan for you, it's volume-based
rates. You generate less on the curbside, you're gonna pay less.
What's that gonna mean is you're gonna have to consider what that
privilege is gonna do to your tipping fee at the landfill. It makes
absolutely no sense.
So I would hope that if you don't maintain the landfill
-- I've been to dozens of landfills around the State, and I'm very
proud of the landfill here. They do a good job, except in the field
of odor control. And I would submit to you again that if the staff
here is able to control the odors just as well as the company is --
and if they can't do it, these same people that were here tonight are
gonna be coming back and yelling at you saying control the odors. If
a private firm takes it over, they're going to be yelling at a private
firm? Well, yes and no. You're gonna have a lot less flexibility.
So if you don't -- my suggestion would be if you don't
maintain ownership and operation, that you bid it out. The worst
that's gonna happen is you're gonna get a lesser price.
(Applause.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, is that the last of
the public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's adjourn for five
minutes.
(A short recess was held.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the meeting for
-- it is still February 7th. We've got just about another hour to go
if we go into the 8th, but we're not gonna go that long. Mr. Dotrill,
we've heard the last public speaker; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm gonna close the public
hearing so we can address the issues that have been raised by
ourselves and the public speakers. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me share some thought.
First and foremost, I guess, I was just thinking of the absurdity of
how we could possibly vote yes on a $200 million contract that we were
handed 35 minutes ago. None of us have read it. None of us know what
it says. I'm not sure how we could possibly vote yes on that.
But I wanted to hit some highlights -- or lowlights
(sic) from earlier this evening. Jim Stewart from the Chamber of
Commerce said something at the conclusion of his comments that he
thought what we should best do is move forward with the alternative
site as quickly as possible in permitting and so on. Commissioner
Norris pointed out we have already committed to doing that and that
ten years is the goal.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Many times.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Many times.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I reiterate if that is
our goal, why would we sign a contract that clearly states and
contemplates a facility for 21 years. If our goal is ten years, I
don't know why we would enter a contract that says otherwise.
David Russell from our Solid Waste Department was
talking about our staff's bid in this process versus Waste
Hanagement's bid. He said, and I quote, "In a sense, it's comparing
apples to oranges," comparing our bid to Waste Hanagement's bid. I
kind of like to have bids where we can compare apples to apples.
Seems to me that would make a lot more sense.
Earlier tonight I talked about what makes more sense
rather than approving a contract that contemplates a life of 21 years
and penalizes us for not going 21 years, particularly when we've
stated, as you just said, "several times," that we only want to go
ten. John, you said the scenario was that -- and, you know, we
wouldn't know what to do in ten years. It seems to me if we have a
ten-year straight bid and we find ourselves in a permit bind as we get
to the end of that, we, the commission or whomever the commission is
at that time, has the ability to make 100e of the decision on how to
deal with that. They don't have to take into consideration the other
contract. They don't have to take into consideration a window of
opportunity in which to deal with that. They have 100e flexibility
and ability with how to deal with that.
The same is not true if we enter into this contract. We
may miss the window of opportunity and have no choice and be stuck for
21 years. And even if we don't, we have to take this document into
consideration and Waste Management into consideration and the
financial penalties into consideration in everything we do. We don't
have the same flexibility.
The greatest point, I guess, was at the end several
people said we are here -- the board is here to serve the public.
I've heard, as have we all, in these meetings and outside these
meetings, in my office, on the phone, at home, from people from
virtually every corner of the county on this issue. We've heard from
many people from Golden Gate. But I have heard from people from
virtually every corner. I haven't spoken to one person, save those
who are connected in some way to Waste Management, who is in favor of
this contract, not one. Now, I don't know if any of you have. I'd
love to hear of those people and their reasons for it if you have, but
I'm wondering who are we serving? Who are we responding to? If not
the public, then who?
Commissioner Hancock, you said earlier tonight we can
probably do better by privatizing than we can ourselves, somewhere
many hours ago, privatization can probably be cheaper than the way we
can do it. And I don't necessarily disagree. I've been convinced
tonight that that may very well be true. But we can privatize without
entering this specific contract. Again, I've said it several times,
if our goal is truly to get out in ten years, it makes no sense to
enter a contract for 21 years now.
With that in mind -- and I know there's gonna be more
discussion, but with that in mind I'm going to make a motion that we
turn down this contract. And I'll just leave it at that, and we can
take further action if there's a majority that says that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd call for a second, but I
think it's only fair that we have continued discussion. Is there
additional discussion on the motion? Is there a second? I'll second
the motion to get it on the floor. Is there any further discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one item. Again, I'll
repeat the absurdity of voting yes on a $200 million contract that
we've had in our hands now for 41 minutes --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not the motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's not. The motion is
to deny the contract that we've had in our hands for 41 minutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm gonna repeat the motion so
that we're all absolutely clear. Commissioner Constantine has made a
motion to deny this contract. The Chair seconded it to get it on the
floor. Is there further discussion? There is none.
I will call to question: All those in favor of denying
this contract, please vote aye. Those opposed?
Motion fails two votes to three.
Is there another motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
discussion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
No. I think there's some
Discussion.
Okay. Good, let's have some
Could --
Me first?
Yeah, Commissioner Norris.
If we do this contract, I have to
say that I've never seen such confusion in the issues before that it's
really fairly straightforward contract. It does everything that we
want it to do.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: You didn't read it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't read it? You think I got
these red eyes sleeping?
Set aside $20 million by going through this contract
process and going ahead with this procedure that we said we're gonna
do for a year -- we'll set aside $20 million that we will use to move
the landfill without raising our rate payers' rates. If we reject
this contract, on the other hand, to set aside that same $20 million
means that's going to be 20 million more dollars, additional dollars,
that comes out of our community and out of the pockets of our rate
payers. And that's the way that is.
And my comfort level is fine that we have given
ourselves the flexibility we need to make sure that we get this
contract and that we have this contract adjusted to our satisfaction
and that it's gonna -- it's going to fulfill our needs for the future
and allow us the flexibility to move this landfill when that decision
is finally made.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there additional discussion?
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two things. One is that I'd like
to ask for the changes between the packet contract and the one we were
just handed to be identified. And while you're preparing to do that,
just generally, I have to say "Who are we serving?" is an offensive
question. We know who we're serving. We know who we've been elected
to serve. And it isn't just the people who come in the room. It's
the people -- some people aren't here because they trust us to do the
right thing.
(Unintelligible comments from unidentified audience
members.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Quiet, please. There are some
contract issues that need to be addressed yet. And I have --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I get that distinction
question answered, though?
MR. DORRILL: We have those. And again I think there's
not much different from the way that we conduct business here,
recognizing that we try to get things in the printed agenda so that
people who are interested over the course of negotiations, if
Mrs. Matthews is asked for something, since the agenda's gone to the
printer, they've agreed to it and they've incorporated that into the
latest version. There's nothing sinister about that. That's how we
do business here essentially 52 weeks of the year. Mr. Weigel has a
copy, and I think it would behoove us all to go through these for
those changes between --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, when did you get
your copy of this copy we were handed now? MR. DORRILL: This afternoon.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why wasn't the board -- all
five of us were here earlier today. Why didn't we get a copy of
that?
MR. DORRILL: It was delivered to my office after 5:00
o'clock. Those are the copies that I brought here this evening that I
had Mr. Keller pass out. And they made some additional copies. I did
not know those copies were for the board members. I thought Waste
Management may have provided extra copies to you. I gave your copies
to those who were sitting in the audience.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. That's appropriate.
That's good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They got our copies.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we address the changes
individually and decide whether or not they're discernible?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I tied to make a note of
it as we went along. And the changes that were agreed to --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. I need to be sure -- the
first thing that I need is I wish that I had a red-lined copy
comparing what's in my packet to what you just handed me. Can't be
much different. Can you just tell us what they are?
MR. VARNADOE: What the Board's -- I'll just go through
very quickly. If you look on page 3 -- they're mainly very minor
changes. On page 3, in the paragraph "Closure," there are some
changes to the Florida Administrative Code reference because they
changed the numbers on us in the Florida Administrative Code. At the
bottom of the page, under "Hazardous Waste," that's again a change in
the reference to the rule number 62.730. That was one of the changes
that someone brought up here that they have changed the code on us.
Page 4, there is a -- to respond to the gentleman from
CBIA, we added this definition of "inert material" in the contract.
And then in the next three definitions we once again changed the
references to the Florida Administrative Code rule numbers.
On Page 5 in the definitions for recovered materials,
recycling, solid waste, and waste tire and special waste, we have
changed the references to the Florida Administrative Code. On page 12 and 13 --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just so the public knows, so far
all he's telling us is they have had a chapter that was wrong, and now
the number's been changed from what it was before to 62. It's --
MR. VARNADOE: The reference to the Florida
Administrative Code, the reference numbers have changed during the
contract period.
On page 12 in the middle of section 2.15, which is
highlighted in my copy, I hope it is on yours, it says, "The
contractor shall not receive a management fee if it or any of it's
affiliates performs such processing services," that was requested by
your chairman. We had no objection to that.
Unless anyone has some questions, I'll go on. Then on
the bottom of page 12 and on top of page 13, again as we explained the
CBIA wanted us to make sure that we would accept the C & D material
that had the de minimis waste, and that's what that change does
there. I think that's pretty self-explanatory, just trying to respond
to CBIA's concerns.
On Page 17, again, the same issue. The change is just
saying the county's gonna determine whether it goes to C & D for
recycling and what goes into the landfill.
On page 18, again, the -- we're dealing with the same
issue again as the C & D materials and where they go and who gets
them.
Page 26, there was a reduction in the dollars to close
the facilities as a result of change in the number of acres of the
Immokalee landfill to be closed, reduction from $3.46 a ton to $3.16 a
ton to nourish the county's benefit.
And the final change is on page 41. Is there a page
417
MR. RAY: Exhibit G.
MR. VARNADOE: Exhibit G.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exhibit "B," as in "boy"?
MR. VARNADOE: "G," as in "girl" or "Goodlette."
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: "G," as in "George."
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. I can't find it, but I know
it's here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: G.
MR. VARNADOE: Yeah, Exhibit G, which is page 41 of your
exhibits. And, again, simply now to fine inert materials, it talks
about how we're gonna treat them.
So very innocuous changes to try to respond, frankly, to
questions of commissioners and the CBIA concerns. That was it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, there are -- there are a
list of changes that we've talked about tonight that I want to make
sure that are on the record and agreed to.
First one is in section 2.16, that is that employees
will have the right of refusal for one year.
MR. VARNADOE: With the only clarification,
Ms. Matthews, if I could, is that there's no prohibition against some
of the employees being employed at the other Waste Management
operation in town. With that understanding you're absolutely right,
one year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One year?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second one is a change
Commissioner Hancock talked about, and that's a neighborhood counsel
to deal with the odor and/or other problems.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. Preferably --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Preferably other problems.
MR. VARNADOE: Hopefully other problems.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was the slide that Waste
Management presented with five specific points on it. I'd like all
five of those incorporated into the contract.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we read those five
points off so we have it on the record; that is to establish and
enable the counsel, community leadership, group involvement, education
awareness and incentives, community-wide environmental programs, open
door/open house policy, and active members of Collier county -- that
you have been active members, I presume that means -- MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- since 1979.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And can I assume, Mr. Weigel,
that the statements made by Waste Management representatives on each
of those points this evening for the record are in fact binding?
MR. WEIGEL: They will be binding. They'll be
incorporated in the document. This document has a merger clause in
section 8.46 which, as I stated previously, states that all the
language in the document is the contract itself. So it's important
for us to make sure that these statements that we wish to be reflected
in the document appear in the document, and we shall do so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Item 3 deals with
unaccrued closure costs, and 7.4, Option A. Option A, I believe, in
the contact we had over the weekend included some unaccrued closure
costs. We want to make sure that they're removed under Option A; that
if we exercise Option A, which is to complete Cell 6, that Waste
Management closes Cell 6 and the landfill for no additional charge.
The county assumes post-closure responsibilities.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm not sure I understand that. Let me
ask --
MR. O'CONNOR: I'll address that. My name again is Jim
O'Connor for the record. Under Option A we will assume all
responsibility for closure. There will be no additional cost for
closure to the county. The only additional cost to the county will be
the assumption of post-closure costs and the undepreciated or
remaining net book value of the hard assets that will be defined in
discussions with each of you to be $1.8 million, if I'm not mistaken,
approximately. There will be a defined schedule. Those will be
obviously easily identifiable. General audit --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On Option A?
MR. O'CONNOR: On Option A. Always been there. It's
been in every draft.
MR. DORRILL: That's correct. There are four of them.
I can tell you what they are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, please do.
MR. DORRILL: There's the necessary transfer station in
Immokalee and the unamortized costs associated with that, unamortized
costs associated with the gas management system, a small
administrative building that they would build on the site, and they
have miscellaneous costs of $110,000 that would be additional fixed
operating equipment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR: The commitment that I made to you
personally is that any rolling stock equipment, all right, compactors
as an example, would be equipment that if the county did not want to
purchase it, either, one, they didn't like the condition of it, didn't
like the established value of the equipment or the net book value,
didn't think that fairly approximated appraisal value, that we would
take that back and re-utilize it in our own system, and the county
could go out and repurchase that equipment that they would need.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had understood Option A was a
walk-away, but I must have misunderstood.
MR. O'CONNOR: That has been the language, to the best
of my knowledge, in all previous drafts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
had a question?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
probably answer it for me.
value, or '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, you
Just -- I don't know. You could
Net book value as opposed to fair market
Undepreciated value.
Well, I know what it is, but is
it likely to be less than or more than the --
HR. O'CONNOR: The intent --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Likely to be less than market
value.
MR. O'CONNOR: The intent is to approximate fair market
value.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we just say --
MR. O'CONNOR: The reality is it may or may not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you
have a question?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George, maybe you can help me
here. 7.4 earlier tonight -- in fact almost exactly four hours ago I
asked you to clarify for me, and if we can do that again for purposes
of the verbiage, that we would go back to kind of a hybrid of the
options outlined here and the options that were in the earlier
contract as far as --
MR. VARNADOE: Let me try to do that. I'll try to do it
clearly. And you all stop me when I try to get off, because I may. I
think what we've agreed with you tonight is that you do want to keep
what's in this contract as 7.4. Let me find that number, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B, public hearing.
MR. VARNADOE: Okay. Under 7.4-A, "Option Exercise"
says, "In order to exercise early termination of Options A and B, the
county shall provide the contractor with written notice of termination
prior to October 31, 1996." I think that's where we want to start the
change. We want to say that you will have an opportunity to exercise
either option by October 31, 19 -- go ahead, Commissioner. I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From now through the end of
the sixth year or actually the million -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Million tons.
MR. VARNADOE: Maybe I missed it. I thought there was
some desire to go ahead and have a hearing before that date.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't want it in the contract.
MR. VARNADOE: If you don't want it in the contract, it
makes it a lot easier.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, you weren't here,
John, but we did say we want to keep that in the contract, not for
them but to require us to at least have a public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
MR. VARNADOE: Without putting legal verbiage, the BCC
will have a public hearing before October 31, 1996, to consider
whether to exercise Option A or Option B at that time. They will then
have the further right to exercise Option A or Option B at any time
prior to the end of the sixth year from the effective date of the
contract or within 180 days of notification there's one million tons
of air space capacity in the landfill, whichever occurs first. And
that kind of paraphrases the language we had before.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you noted there are 180
days, and I think in here it says 30.
MR. O'CONNOR: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Moving on, the next item I
had picked up on my list dealt with the federal Clean Air Act rules,
and that there was some concern earlier this evening as to whether
that really did include the promulgated rules and regulations that are
expected to be finalized Hay 1st. Is there some way that we can put
that wording in the contract that the promulgated rules -- is that
what we're looking for --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for the federal Clean Air Act,
will be -- are included in the contract tipping fee?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That they don't trigger a
teevaluation of the rate. We're proposing to change that from the
draft.
MR. WEIGEL: They had stated that on the record
previously, even prior to tonight. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. VARNADOE: And if the language doesn't do that, then
we'll work --
MR. WEIGEL: For further clarification it would probably
most easily go under change of law as addendum or addition as to that
particular addendum.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think three members of the
board have asked that we verbally or in writing form --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We want to make sure that the
contract stipulates that the promulgated rule changes coming out in
the next couple months or three months or four months will not trigger
a change of law request.
MR. VARNADOE: I think what we've accomplished to date
is to have those, that we will comply with those. I think what your
concern is that we haven't specifically stated that complying with
those will not trigger any --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. That's what's missing.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, we previously addressed it in 2.23
and 2.9 in the operational term, but not taken care of that extra
point of cost.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. The next item that
I had -- and I believe Commissioner Constantine already did this --
changing the 30 days notice back to 180 days on the -- on the million
ton.
MR. VARNADOE: I think I stated that how I see the
option that -- but yes, the answer's yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And the last item that I
have is -- deals in the "Management Plan," deleting the word "no" from
page 11, section 10.2.
MR. VARNADOE: That we also are -- agree to that, have
agreed to it, do agree to it.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's there on the document that
you have now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, the treatment of leachate --
MR. WEIGEL: No, it's a different --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a different "no," right?
Paragraph 1, last sentence. All right. We're going to eliminate that
word "no."
I believe those were the changes that we previously
agreed to this evening. Let's clarify that and make sure.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just had two questions.
Tom Henning brought up 2.8, whether that referenced the appropriate
Florida rule or whatever it is that 2.8 references. Did we change
that?
MR. VARNADOE: I think that's one of the changes,
Commissioner Constantine, that I was telling you that they changed the
code section on us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second one is I thought
three weeks ago we were unanimous, and I'd just like to poll the board
and see if we still have a preference for no tarp.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have that in my notes. I wrote
simply, "Tarp issue, tell it to me again."
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the next group of issues
that I want to address are the ones that we still have not agreed to.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the tarp is one of those, if
we can proceed with this orderly. Did you have another question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'd like to hear the rest of
the list.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That concludes the list that we
had agreed to as we went through tonight.
Now we have a list of things that we have not agreed to,
and the first one on that list is the tarp.
MR. VARNADOE: I don't do tarps.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You don't do tarps?
MR. OwCONNOR: I do tarps.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR: And for the road my name is Jim
O'Connor. I guess I want to reiterate some of Warren Smith, who is
the project manager for Waste Management here, some of his comments.
I think you really have to understand the operating practices that are
applied in the sanitary landfill. If you utilize daily cover, the
next morning you -- you come into the site and you strip the daily
cover. You strip the daily cover. You stockpile that daily cover and
you re-utilize that daily cover, all right?
In the process of stripping, you always have some loss.
Obviously, you cannot -- it's not like coming off a smooth surface.
You're coming off a rough surface, which is the solid waste. So, you
-- the tarp and the cover act as the -- are similar agents in the
prevention of odor and vector control. You come in, you lift up the
tarp, it's not any different than coming in and stripping the cover.
The difference in the two techniques is that using daily
cover in the working face of the site consumes air space, all right?
And when the county asked us to utilize in our response, we did so;
not only to optimize the site, which again was the initial intent of
the proposal of the RFP, but it also impacts on the economics of the
project, because lost air space relates to volume, which relates to
recovery of expenses, okay?
So I guess -- let's put that aside. Let's put the
economics aside just for a second. The reality of the situation,
you're not going to get any better control utilizing daily cover than
using the alternative tarps. And believe me, many more hours of
discussion than you've heard here tonight went into the setting of
that Administrative Code section 62701.500(7)(E)l(F). So believe me,
we at Waste Management, we have similar to McDonald's, all right? We
have a landfill university, all right, in Oak Brook, Illinois. We
send all our people to it. We actually take people in from the
outside to come to those classes. And believe me when I tell that you
this technique adds no additional control to the site.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except --
MR. O'CONNOR: That's all I can -- let me -- I just want
to address one other issue. The concern for the utilization of earth
or soils from C & D recycling will not change one iota, because all
we'll do in the working face is not utilize what is gonna be required
basically one time with that small loss factor that I told you about
earlier, okay? The daily cover that's being purchased now will
actually be a component of what is called intermediate cover. It will
be the first six inches, which is what it should be today as you
operate your site. In fact, if you don't operate it that way, you're
not in compliance with your permits, nor are you in compliance with
the laws of the State of Florida as it relates to solid waste and
sanitary landfill operation.
So you're not going to get any additional control from
this process. And believe me, the subject has been debated at length
in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one question about that.
What I understood is that in your operations and in standard
professional operations you would strip the daily cover the next
morning. However, it has been the county's practice not to strip
that. Am I understanding that correctly? So there is -- even though
what you're describing, put the tarp on, take the tarp off, put the
dirt on, take the dirt off, those are the same things. I understand
that. But the county in its operations puts the dirt on, leaves the
dirt on.
MR. O'CONNOR: Let me ask -- let me --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me get a clarification. Do
we strip the dirt off in the morning?
MR. RUSSELL: We don't. But the difference I'm hearing
is they're using six to twelve inches, and we try to keep it right to
a minimum of six inches. And there's no way in scraping to recover
any of that because it's kind of -- in other words you just barely got
this surface covered on top there, and -- but I might add that
immediately what you do in the morning is you run over that with a
compactor and you break that up, and you're exposing what you covered
the night before. There's no way not to as you create this new face
of fresh garbage as the trucks come in.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We're currently doing that? In
the morning we're breaking up the six inches of cover that we put on
it at night?
MR. DORRILL: It's inadvertent. If this is yesterday's
face, and you start working on yesterday's face, just by virtue of the
weight of the machine you're gonna punch through.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no net difference?
MR. RUSSELL: There's no net difference. The effect of
it is gonna be so minimal, nobody's gonna know the difference. I mean
there's no way to get around working with a working face of fresh
garbage for 11 hours a day. And we're talking about a minuscule
amount of time first thing in the morning. They're pulling a tarp
back and we're driving over that -- the cover that we have there, that
six-inch layer of cover. It's minimal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I understand. Do you have
more to add, Mr. O'Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR: I don't think so. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me approach the cover
question from another angle for one reason. I am concerned about the
two companies that employ people, Collier County. I know you've
written them into your contract and so forth. I guess, you know, two
years from now if I see Naples Recycling and Modern Recycling going
out of business, I'm gonna be very, very concerned about C & D
operation, about what's being landfilled. And I guess I'd like to ask
you -- I'm not -- I will not encourage this board to ever take action
to protect a company from ever going out of business. That's not our
job. But obviously that would be an indicator that C & D is not being
used in the way which this board has had past policies and the way I
hear that you would still continue to accept the C & D material
because you need it for intermediated cover. If that happens, they
still have a market, they're still in business, and everyone's happy.
If the flags start coming up that that's not happening,
I'm a little worried about what flexibility we do or don't have to
look into that. You're in charge of the operation. I guess I'm
looking for a better comfort level than I have now on that.
MR. O'CONNOR: I know there's already language in the
contract that states that we are going to buy this material. And
actually it not only states that we're gonna buy it, but it states how
much we're gonna pay for it.
MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: That ends in one year. It ends in
September.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Harszalkowski, we're talking
with Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR: Maybe let me try to re-frame it for you.
We are in the construction and demolition and recycling business. We
are in the recycling business, not only here in Collier County in the
recycling business, but we're in composting. We're in various other
aspects of waste reduction. If we were to force out, all right, an
ancillary facility here that is in waste reduction, I mean, it goes
against everything that we do.
MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: No, it doesn't. That's ridiculous.
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, we're in the process of
constructing a construction and demolition facility. We've already
received permits to do that in Broward County. We're doing it in
about twelve other states in the United States. We've got composting
facilities. We have got recycling. We just got our hauling division
here at Waste Management of Collier County today waiting for tonight's
meeting. We're out soliciting in the City of Naples commercial
recycling to collect corrugated and office papers.
It's our business. And we've already committed here
that we will not do this business unless we come back in and re-bid if
the contract expires, and even bid it. I mean the reality of the
thing is we're going to provide that service. The county wants it.
It's in our contract. I don't know how much more comfort I can give
you. I mean I understand your dilemma.
MR. VARNADOE: From the contract provision -- and help
me out because I'm going from memory -- you have a requirement that we
keep maintaining your 80e recycling effort. We also have a
requirement from last time as you recall that we use C & D material as
opposed to virgin earth for the daily cover, which we still use. We
call it maybe a little different term, but for the major cover we
use. We also have a requirement in there that we competitively bid
those services and that if one of our subsidiaries or we do it, we
don't get a management fee.
So it really behooves us to keep someone else in there
to do it if we want to maximize profits. And I think the contractual
-- the contractual thing is in there. And -- excuse me. And it also
says, "Neither the contractor nor its subsidiaries or parent shall
provide off-site construction and demolition debris,
recycling-generated daily cover material," 2.14.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have got to ask Mr. Weigel a
logistical question. We are about 19 minutes out of being out of
audiotape. What do we do?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go slow.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I need a motion to vote.
MR. WEIGEL: You're good for 19 minutes. As long as
you've got videotape going you're still covered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're still covered with the
videotape? Okay. Let me ask this board if there's any further
questions or concern about this tarp. Mr. Constantine -- Commissioner
Constantine, you -- well, you have concern, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern shifted from not so
much the tarp as making sure we continue this C & D that we have
going. I guess I want to ask, the 80e requirement, if
Ms. Harszalkowski's business is performing C & D work, does that count
towards your 80e requirement? In other words if you're buying cover
from her, do you get credit for it? So this 80e is what's just what
comes into the landfill?
MR. RAY: Right. The 80e goal is the goal for the
on-site processing of construction demolition; in other words what the
county subcontractor right now, Modern, is doing on site.
MR. VARNADOE: The answer to your question is yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Moving on, another item
that we had not quite agreed to but I understand that we're not real
far away is on gas management for Cells 3 and 4. From earlier
discussion I heard some concern that it -- gas management for 3 and 4
was not included in the contract, and there's an additional 200 to
250,000. I just wanted to -- is it included? MR. VARNADOE: It is included.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it's part of the $15.06
tipping fee?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. And I'll give you a reference.
It's in section 2.8, if you want to make a note of that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 2.8 what?
MR. VARNADOE: 2.8.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 2.8? For cells 3 and 47 Okay.
Next item is probably gonna be a little harder to
resolve, and that's the equipment with the book value of $1.27
million.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm not sure where you want us to go with
that. If we buy it we're going to have to add that to tipping fee
because we responded to your RFP that said you get it for nothing. I
happen to be of the school that that means our rate payers, you and I,
are gonna pay for it twice. I don't see really the benefit in that.
That's my personal observation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I was going to ask what
you suggest, because that's kind of the point I came from. I gave you
credit for it while you weren't here, John. You know, that was the
point that Commissioner Norris brought up in that we end up paying for
it twice if we force it back into the mix. And I certainly don't want
to do that. So I guess I'm not sure what the question is there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The comment I made earlier
was that money if paid would then potentially go into the kitty for
our next siting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can charge an extra dollar on
the tipping fee too and accomplish the same thing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, you could do that, but it's
already reflected into the tipping fee at this site, so you -- you can
put whatever you want to in escrow by just raising the tipping fee to
wherever you want it. And really you're just shuffling money if you
do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have an issue on that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't either.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't either.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess that finishes the
unresolved issues.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, are you clear on all
of these issues that we've discussed?
MR. WEIGEL: Just a couple. So ultimately on the
equipment, then, the decision is to go back to the original RFP
concept?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, you have additional
questions on where we're going with this?
MR. WEIGEL: Just for the record I'd like to go back to
early on in the discussion this evening was the mention of the
environmental audit. And the draft that you have, based on the
negotiation -- further negotiation after the last meeting you had,
provides that there shall be an environmental audit. I want to
clarify this because it must be stated correctly at least for the
record so everyone knows once and for all.
The environmental audit will come back, and you will see
in your document -- I can take it to the page -- that on 2.2, page 6,
that it specifically provides that there's a standard to be applied.
It's not four weeks for the board to decide whether it wants to go
forward or not when it receives the audit. There's a specific
standard applied, a federal standard. And if the landfill comes in
below the threshold of a problem standard there, then the
environmental audit is sufficient and the contract will go forward as
far as that particular element is concerned. I just wanted that to be
clear for the record and for the public because it wasn't specifically
stated earlier.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we all clear on that
requirement?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got one item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under 2.9, "Gas Management,"
"(C) Withholding of Payments," it was brought up a couple times but
we haven't had any discussion. Right now the -- as it reads we can
withhold 10e of monthly payments for any time there's a deficiency
report. Does anyone from Waste Management have any idea what a likely
time frame -- if there is a deficiency report from Law Engineering as
far as gas management, what the likely and realistic response time to
correct that would be? Is that a month, three months?
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, obviously it depends on
what the deficiency is. One, we wouldn't anticipate any deficiencies,
but I think the easiest way for me to answer your question is that if
there's a deficiency and you're withholding moneys that we'd like to
get our hands on, we're gonna move expeditiously to resolve them. In
most cases it would probably be the additional -- the adding of
additional wells to collect from areas where gas is building up and
supposedly doesn't have a sufficient vacuum or doesn't have sufficient
ability to move towards a well, all right? So it would be relatively
quick. A well can be installed in days.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Days?
MR. O'CONNOR: Days.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Days? Why I ask that,
theoretically -- I don't anticipate this happening, but theoretically
there could be a violation, you could wait six years and get all your
money back if you fixed it at the end of those six years. I assume
you'd want the use of that 10e --
MR. O'CONNOR: Commissioner, ultimately we want to have
-- we want to have all the counties in the United States eventually
call you and tell you -- and you would respond to them that you have
no problems and you would recommend privatizing with us. So we're
gonna be -- that's the hammer you have over us to expeditiously act
under all these cases.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like a little more
added to that hammer, I guess. I was gonna suggest --
MR. RAY: Commissioner, could I just interrupt? The
hammer is you all have a performance bond -- substantial performance
bond, and there's default notices in here. And that's the real issue
here. You can pull our performance bond in addition to withholding
payments. So I just want to make you aware of that hammer that you've
got.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wonder if it might not make
sense to have -- right now we withhold 10e until it's fixed, but I
wonder if anything exceeding six continuous months, if there's a
problem there and it's not addressed in the six-month period, then
anything exceeding that six months would just be forfeited as opposed
to holding on to that and giving it to you whenever you get around to
it. That would seem we'd have a little hammer there.
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tim, six months is too
long. These are lethal gases, lethal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, but public comment is
finished.
MR. RAY: All right. Commissioner, again let me -- I'll
refer you all to the default language. There's -- there's language in
there that deals with a situation in which multiple defaults occurs.
And what we've written in here -- and this was language that we
offered, you know, without any request by the county. And that is
that if there are repeated defaults, there's a concept called a
habitual violator, in which case you can recall our performance bond.
And there's a problem with the scenario that I think
you've raised, Commissioner, is that I don't know what the scenario
might be if there is a deficiency, but there could be, you know, a
seven-month fix that's required. And arbitrarily setting a six-month
time period, I just don't think, you know, works. This is obviously
-- I mean it's a landfill, but it's also a very technical engineered
facility. And, you know, problems just don't certainly have automatic
deadlines to them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does anyone else on the board
have a concern that we have -- short of pulling the bond or defaulting
on the contract, we don't have a mechanism in which to penalize if
there is an extended --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the performance bond is a
very strict measure that we could invoke on them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the same penalty that we
have for every contractor with Collier County. Whether they're
designing a roadway, building a roadway, building a building, that
performance bond is the guarantee. That's the reason it's called a
performance bond. So, you know, I certainly don't mean to make light
of it, but it's -- that's why it's there. And it seems to me it's
been the appropriate method in every other contract we've ever had,
and it would seem consistent to do that here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would argue, though, that a
road contract doesn't impact a community the same way as a landfill.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's get a consensus so we
don't --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the interest of the tape, I'd
like to tell you that I agree with the commissioners on the other end
down there, Hancock and Norris. This is not unusual.
MR. DORRILL: I have one final and only item if you'll
bear with me. It's section 2.6 -- I'm sorry, 2.9, as it pertains to
gas management system, final paragraph E. And this, again, was
something that Ms. Matthews and I had discussed with them in our final
negotiation session. This has to do with the payment of cost for the
environmental engineer to certify the design and construction. And
then in the final sentence there, we had determined that the annual
cost of the consulting engineer's certification of operation shall be
borne by the contractor. And that was something that I had asked them
to contemplate. And frankly, it just slipped my mind that that was
something that I had wanted to see and discussed with them when
Ms. Matthews was present.
That's -- again, it's a cost item, and I'd like to know
whether or not Waste Hanagement's in a position to pay the cost of the
annual certification in order to control that. I think that's
something very important.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We hire them. We still control
the -- that they write the check. Is that basically what you're
saying?
MR. DORRILL: That was my contention. And as part of
the best management practice criteria I think the burden, frankly, is
on them to certify the annual operating engineering of the system
that's there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that engineer's still our
engineer, Law Engineering?
MR. DORRILL: The Law Engineering firm, unless we
mutually determine that we want a different firm. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR: We did in negotiations agree to pay for
the outside engineer review of the design. We didn't agree to do the
annual inspections, but if this is the -- if this was the remaining
issue that exists, all right, then we'll pay the annual operating
fees.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, you'll make
sure that that's included in the contract that Waste Management has
agreed to pay the annual fee for certification?
MR. DORRILL: That's a very important item. And I think
that the language in the last sentence should say the annual cost of
consulting engineer's certification of operations shall be borne by
the contractor.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know you think we're done with
it, but back to the tarp issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it be appropriate for this
board if we see a reduction in the amount of C & D that is being
produced in the county -- and I'm talking about all vendors, not just
those on site, to Waste Management -- we see that amount dropping, we
see it dropping and we believe it to be landfilled, do we have the
option -- this may be a question for Mr. Weigel -- under this
contract, to call the contract back and mandate, even if it causes a
rate increase? Because the cost of purchasing the C & D material on
an annual basis based on 237,000 tons a year is about 70 cents a ton.
In other words if you amortize over all the tonnage,
it's about 70 cents a ton to provide the maximum that two C & D
recyclers can produce, can we come back as we did in the past and,
even though it may be a little more costly, adjust the contract so
that C & D is utilized at preset amounts and used in the operation?
In other words I'm not saying look at the cost difference between
tarping and doing it, I'm saying we just decide it's a darn good idea,
and then it can be incorporated, even though it may result in a rate
increase in the operational plan? Is that a possibility? And is
there a real problem with that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question about it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do I understand that what you're
asking for basically is that -- that they presently have a one-year
promise, right, to buy C & D --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Through September, plus one
year.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Contract, plus a year. I'm
uncomfortable with the idea of asking rate payers to commit right now
that they're gonna pay higher rates so that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not what I'm asking. What
I'm asking is that what we've been told is that that material can be
used in intermediate cover, and it's obviously cheaper than virgin
fill, about 50 cents a ton cheaper if I'm not mistaken.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The contract requires that, that
they not use virgin dirt.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. I'm just -- I'm just
asking what if.
MR. O'CONNOR: Okay. Let me try to flip some language
around that maybe addresses that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR: We've asked you for the right to
petition, all right, for cost changes, I think, on a two-year
interval, if I'm not mistaken, all right? And you have the right to
approve or deny, all right? What you're asking us to do is just the
reverse.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly.
MR. O'CONNOR: I'm saying to you is we'll reverse the
language. I mean we'll offer that same language here. If you come to
us with a situation, we'll sit down and negotiate with you. So if
there's an additional cost and you -- we can come to terms that that
should be 5 cents more on our rate and continue to subsidize a
depressed recycling industry, that's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR: So I guess -- I don't know what the
appropriate way to address it legally, but--
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not in favor of making that
change tonight.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't that already -- doesn't
that opportunity already exist in the contract?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It exist in the direction of
Waste Management to us, but I'm just wondering if it can exist in
direction from us to Waste Management.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it already exists in
that we can -- if we have specific things, we take it to them, they
can answer to us, it's already there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That answers my question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there further
questions?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two minutes till midnight.
Let's get it done.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I heard a couple of things -- and
I'm gonna build this to a motion rather rapidly. I heard things about
talk of penalty. I've heard talk of rushing. In the last three
months I spent 12 -- well, 14 hours in public hearings on this. And
that's just me, not to mention the rest of you that have been
discussing this for a couple of years, not to mention the 60-plus
hours of my own time which is well-served. So I don't think we're
rushing.
If we maintain tipping fees, we have an opportunity here
to avoid dramatic increases of 30 to 40e. And for the first time I've
heard people say, "Raise my rates. I don't care." I don't think that
speaks for the entire Collier County. I don't think all of Collier
County says, "Raise my rates. I don't care." So I hear that tonight
and I -- I'm sorry. I just don't agree with it.
I believe that this contract can get us where we need to
go in looking at alternate technologies and funding a new landfill
site without dipping further into your pockets. For that reason I'm
gonna make a motion that we approve it with the modifications stated
this evening.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion, and we have a
second. And it's almost February the 8th. Is there further
discussion on the motion?
I'm not gonna support the motion. And the reason that
I'm not gonna support the motion is two-fold. Number one, this
contract is in direct opposition to reduction of the waste stream, and
I'm committed to doing whatever we can to reduce the waste stream.
The other reason that I'm not going to support the motion is that we
have these unexplained, I guess, for lack of a better term, capital --
capital costs that I'd like to know more about what's gonna happen to
them at termination. I don't have any problems with what happens at
the end of 21 years should it go that long, and I'm convinced that it
won't. For those reasons I'm not going to support the motion. Any
other discussion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know in a surprise move I'm
not gonna support it either. I'm pleased to see some things that have
happened here. I don't happen to think this is the best contract. I
don't happen to think this is in the best interest. I am pleased to
see some of the things addressed, however, including the 108 feet, the
more flexibility as far as opting out. I'm particularly pleased to
see that -- particular complaints by neighbors and customers alike
will not only be tracked but given to us, required to be given to us.
I like the neighborhood counsel idea. I like the fact there is no
management fee for the subcontractors who may be subsidiaries.
There are a number of things I like better than where we
were three weeks ago. However -- and as I said before, I think
Commissioner Hancock's point that privatization probably means we can
do it cheaper. However, I don't think this particular contract is the
privatization one we should be voting on for a number of reasons; the
most important of which is we've all said I don't know how many times
we want to be out of there in ten years and we are voting -- it
appears the majority of the board is gonna vote yes on a document that
says we want to be there 21 years, and those are in direct conflict
with one another.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just on that last point, it's a
recognition of reality that we may not get everything done in a
ten-year time frame. I think that's a realistic approach. But I
think the fact that we've given ourselves the opportunity to opt out,
potentially not at a cost but in fact putting more money in our pocket
than we could through existing operation negates that in my opinion.
We'll obviously differ on that, but I find comfort in that element.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion on
the motion?
There being none, I will call to question all those
favor of awarding this contract, please state aye. All those opposed?
Motion passes 3-2, Commissioner Constantine and MAtthews
being in the opposition.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAke a motion we adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't need to be seconded, and
it's not debatable. Motion to adjourn. We're adjourned.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING BY: Anjonette K. Baum, CSR