HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 10/20/1993 0
PUBLIC WORKS A IESTMS
OCTOBER 209 1993
PRESENT: JIM WHITE TOM BRUBAKER
PAUL MANN ROBYN BARTELT
JIM BENNETT JERRY HARDABECK
•DON WICKSTROM a STEVE CAPUTO
TONY McCARTHY = MR & MRS RUST
Recycling Yard Waste Contract
Wickstrom stated this is a carry-over from the last Public Works
meeting and he referred to his memorandum indicating what the
financial impact would be on the Utility Tax on garbage, if we
accept Kent Disposal's proposal. Or, he said, we could absorb it
in the general fund provided Council cuts the equivalent expense
from the proposed budget. Wickstrom noted that Kent Disposal has
submitted a formal protest on the RFP claiming Waste Management did
not comply with the Request for Proposal. Wickstrom stated that
the Committee may want to consider that, or they may want to recall
the proposals. Wickstrom said that another firm has expressed
interest in submitting a proposal on a three-tray toter.
White said that in reviewing the information he noted one firm is
proposing a 90 gallon commingle toter with 20 gallon glass
container and the other firm is proposing a three bin separated
container. He asked what had been written in the RFP. White said
it seems as though we have two different firms submitting two
different ways of handling this. White said, if we go with the 90
gallon container as stated in the RFP, than that means we will have
to raise our Utility Tax. He went on to say that he felt if we
award the bid to the three bin separated containers, when that was
not in the RFP, we could have a legal problem.
Brubaker stated that he feels there is an ambiguity in the RFP.
Brubaker explained that an RFP is different from a Request for Bid
in that it doesn't require a specific response. Brubaker said this
RFP does request 90 gallon containers, but reading further the RFP
states . . . . "description of the collection receptacle proposed for
the recyclables" . Brubaker said that it is understandable that a
company bidding on the document could think that they had to
furnish 90 gallon containers. Brubaker stated that he doesn't
think we are legally exposed.
1
i
Wickstrom said that Kent Disposal has indicated they would grant us
another extension and if that were the case, we could go out for
another RFP clearing up any ambiguities. White said that we will
be passing a large cost on to our citizens and he would like to see
it bid both ways.
Bennett agreed with White in rewriting the RFP, based on what the
original intent was and what we have now.
In response to White, Wickstrom said the" Ordinance will make it
illegal to put yard waste in the garbage. In response to White's
question on billing, Wickstrom said that we could bill for
recycling separately from the yard waste program. He said the
customers have a program now for which they are paying for
indirectly however, a significant portion thereof is being
subsidized from the industrial community based on the fact that
they make up the bulk of the City's garbage service. Wickstrom
said that the residential customers are feeling they are getting a
free service and we want to continue the high support for recycling
we're presently experiencing. He said we are recommending that we
continue subsidizing the recycling program but, bill for the yard
waste program. Since the yard waste service is not mandatory, the
customer will have an option of composting, which would not cost
them anything.
Jerry Hardabeck, General Manager of Waste Management Rainier,
stated that they did,read the proposal and noted that it did state
the 96 gallon cart. He said they called the City and said they
found another service to . be more successful and in some cases a
little less expensive and asked to propose their program, which
currently services about 60,000 residential units outside the City
of Seattle. Hardabeck said this is the most well used program for
collecting curbside recycling. Hardabeck stated that Waste
Management services the City of Renton and also unincorporated King
County. Hardabeck stated that the present hauler services the City
of Kent and unincorporated King County as well. He further said
that Waste Management rate in King County is $3 .21 per home where
they are providing source separated curb side recycling with three
bins and lid. Waste Management proposed to the City of Kent to do
the same service for $2.55. Hardabeck stated that the City's
present hauler provides a commingle system, (the 96 gallon system)
for $1.99 and that same service out in their unincorporated King
County area is $3 .21. Hardabeck said that he feels the question
that needs to be asked of the City's present hauler is, why is
their proposed rate, ($4.98) to service the densely populated area
of the City, so much higher than their rate ($3.21) to service the
rather scattered area of unincorporated King County.
White said that he feels we should go back an&clean up the RFP and
get bids both ways.
2
Brubaker said that the City has received a written protest from
Steve Caputo at Kent Disposal claiming that the Waste Management
bid is not responsive. He also said he had received a letter from
an attorney representing Kent Disposal asserting that the other bid
was not responsive and the City had a legal duty to create the bid
in a fair forum and essentially their assertion is that the bid
should go to Kent Disposal. Brubaker stated that he does not agree
with that legal analysis however, he wanted the Committee to be
made aware of that. Brubaker clarified with the Committee that
they wish to reject both bids received and set the bid with one
alternative being the mixed 96 gallon toter and another alternative
being the stacker and a third alternative being any other system
that anyone would like to propose that would achieve the service
needs. Brubaker said the RFP will include a statement indicating
that this is a proposal only and there is flexibility in the
response.
This was agreeable to both parties.
Committee unanimously agreed to reject the bids from Kent Disposal
and Waste Management Rainier.
Downtown Infrastructure
No comment on this item.
Street Humps on Carnaby Way
White asked what the process is in placing street humps. Wickstrom
explained that we have a neighborhood traffic control program and
we have an internal process whereby a study is done after staff
meets with the citizens.
Meeting adjourned at 6: 10 P.M.
3