Loading...
11/15/1993 CITY COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, November 15, 1993 at 9:00 a.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Robert M. Brumback Assistant Public Works Director/Utilities Paul H. Nystrom Public Works Finance Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Service Awards Five service awards were presented to City Employees. Bobby Gross, Parks and Recreation Department, was presented the November Employee of the Month award. The City Commission Meeting recessed at 9:10 a.m. to meet as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and reconvened at 9:44 a.m. ITEM #1 - Presentation regarding Recycling (CM) Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, indicated the City Commission is being asked to review the City's bid for the recycling contract to see if they agree with it. Mayor Garvey questioned why this would not have been reviewed previously. Ms. Rice indicated that it would have given the competition in the bidding process an edge. Commissioner Deegan questioned how long the presentation would be. Ms. Rice indicated approximately 15 minutes. Commissioner Deegan questioned if equal time should be allowed for the other individuals to explain their bid. Ms. Rice indicated the purpose of the presentation is for the Commission to decide if they agree with the bid as the City has submitted it. She stated the second part of the meeting will be for staff to explain why the City's bid was chosen for award the other bidders could then make their presentation. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern this would not be the same type of presentation. It was the consensus of the Commission that the other bidder should be allowed to make a presentation prior to the explanation regarding the award recommendation. Bob Brumback, Assistant Public Works Director/Utilities, reviewed the scope of the recycling project. The program will include a curbside sort from 18 gallon recycling bins provided by the City. Residential pickup will occur once a week. The recycling fee will begin at $1.99, escalate to $2.12 and go back down to $1.99 once the debt for the startup costs are paid off. He stated there are 230 multi-family complexes in the City and there will be collection centers provided for these facilities. Commissioner Deegan questioned the savings in the garbage rate for multi-family. Mr. Brumback indicated this would be due to the reduction in garbage pickups. Commissioner Deegan questioned why there would not also be a reduction for single family residential. Mr. Brumback indicated different services are provided to the single family customers. Multi-family complexes are provided with dumpsters and there is no yard waste or white goods collections at these facilities. Commissioner Deegan expressed concern that there would not be the same incentive to participate in the recycling program in the single family areas. Mr. Brumback indicated there will be a 75 cent per month reduction in the single family residential garbage collection rates. Mayor Garvey pointed out multi-family facilities are treated as commercial establishments. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether the monthly fee reduction for single family residential would have occurred if another company were awarded the bid. Mr. Brumback indicated it would. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the program mandates recycling. Mr. Brumback indicated it did not as it has not been found necessary to do so. Commissioner Deegan questioned the 75 percent participation in the pilot program, indicating this had not been experienced in all pilot areas. Mr. Brumback agreed only 45 percent participated in some areas. However, the 75 percent was an average over the four pilot neighborhoods. Commissioner Deegan questioned a perceived disagreement by the Assistant City Manager, Elizabeth Deptula. Ms. Deptula stated she was concerned the Commission may be misinterpreting the comments regarding the reduced fee. She stated the 75 cents will come off the solid waste portion of the bill, but there will be an increase due to the recycling charge. Mr. Brumback agreed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if those not participating in the recycling program will get the 75 cent reduction. Mr. Brumback indicated they would as this will be a reduction in the solid waste fee. Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns that those that don't do anything will benefit. He questioned why the program would not be made mandatory. Mr. Brumback indicated the program could be made mandatory, however the community has been recycling conscious. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether or not participation in recycling would allow the City to go to once a week garbage pickup. Mr. Brumback indicated that once a week garbage pickup had been tested in the pilot project and the problem found was to be odors. Commissioner Thomas questioned if other than odor was there ability to do a once a week pickup. Mr. Brumback indicated this was so. Commissioner Deegan questioned why there would be savings in collection. Mr. Brumback indicated the $17.05 currently charged includes some recycling services. Commissioner Deegan questioned why there was no change in the disposal rate. Mr. Brumback indicated this may be feasible in the future but currently there are too many uncontrollable variables. Commissioner Deegan wished to clarify that no matter who did the recycling, 75 cents comes off the bill. Mr. Brumback indicated that was correct. Commissioner Deegan questioned the difference between a set-out rate and a participation rate. Mr. Brumback indicated it was the difference between the number of participants versus the number of times the bin is set out. Mayor Garvey questioned if the new yellow milk jugs were recyclable. Mr. Brumback indicated they were not. Commissioner Deegan questioned whether there was any validity to the claim that the yellow kept the milk fresher, longer. Mr. Brumback indicated not to his knowledge. Mr. Brumback further reported the multi-material drop-off center would be consolidated at one central location. All other drop-off centers will be closed. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the other bidder had the same program would the drop-off center be in the same location. Mr. Brumback indicated it would, however City employees would not service it. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City would charge the other company for locating the facility on City property. Mr. Brumback indicated they would not. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the other bidder showed this program as a cost, whereas the City does not. Mr. Brumback indicated it will cost but the City will not charge separately for it. Ms. Rice indicated the cost for this facility will be in the total rate structure. Mayor Garvey questioned why the City would not charge the other company to use City property. Mr. Brumback indicated this provided an even playing field in the bid. Mr. Brumback reviewed the community service programs through recycling. He indicated free mulch for residents would be available at the drop-off center, there would be free collection of office and computer paper at Clearwater schools, free collection of recyclables at coastal and neighborhood cleanups, the provision of recycling containers for special events sponsored by the City and the maintenance and service of the City marina mini-drop-off center. Commissioner Deegan questioned the free mulch program, stating Solid Waste provides this service, not recycling. Mr. Brumback indicated the free mulch is backhauled by yard waste vehicles after they have taken yard waste to the mulch site. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not this should be a part of the bid as the Solid Waste Division is currently providing this service. Regarding the proposals for processing and marketing the materials, Mr. Brumback indicated there will be a processing center at the Solid Waste Complex. Materials will be screened and shipped to market. He stated a dumping ramp will be constructed at the Solid Waste Complex. Profits will be optimized by using established markets, using spot-markets, processing and marketing for other cities, and using a rail spur for market flexibility. Commissioner Deegan questioned the recycling of telephone books. Mr. Brumback indicated the City has tried to recycle the books, however it costs more to ship them than is gained in revenue. Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was a possibility to work with other cities to perhaps make it less expensive. He did not understand why one city was successful and we were not. Mr. Brumback indicated the successful city had a gypsum plant close to them. He stated if the City finds a way to cost effectively recycle telephone books, it will. Mr. Brumback reported the market is showing an upward trend due to increased use of recycled products. He cited as an example, T-shirts being made out of recycled plastic bottles. He stated the City's revenues were up as they are marketing these materials more aggressively. Mr. Brumback reviewed the 5-year Proforma for the program stating the capital investment will be borrowed up front and paid back over a 4-year program. The City of Clearwater will receive 7 percent the first year and 8 percent for every year thereafter. The recycling rates will be reduced and there will be an overall 17 percent return on investment. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there was a $900,000 capital investment. Mr. Brumback indicated this was the approximate figure. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the Proforma included the cost of borrowing the money. Mr. Brumback indicated it did. Commissioner Thomas questioned what is the anticipated turnover rate on the equipment. Mr. Brumback indicated there is no history regarding this but it is hoped a seven to eight year life span can be obtained. Mayor Garvey questioned if the typical Clearwater repair and replacement costs were included. Mr. Brumback indicated they were not in order to maintain a level playing field among the bidders. Concerns were expressed regarding not setting aside funds for replacement. Ms. Rice indicated there will be money left over from revenues after five years. Commissioner Thomas stated there was a $100,000 difference between the Proforma and the capital investment. Mr. Nystrom indicated $773,000 would be the cost of the capital; the $791,000 includes the cost of the money on the lease/purchase for the equipment. Commissioner Thomas stated Mr. Brumback had indicated the capital investment would be paid off in three to four years and was the reason the residential recycling rate could be reduced. Mr. Nystrom indicated there was a distinction between the capital investment for the building, processing ramp and bar coding. Those would be paid off in three years, plus three years of lease/purchase for the equipment. Commissioner Thomas felt it was misleading to say the capital was paid off in three to four years. Mr. Brumback indicated they were trying to show the monies the City is having to spend in order to get into recycling. He stated there will be a capital investment of $773,000. Commissioner Thomas questioned Assistant City Manager Betty Deptula, regarding whether or not the $773,000 plus costs would break $1,000,000. Ms. Deptula indicated she would expect so. Commissioner Thomas felt the $791,000 figure was $200,000 short of paying back. Mr. Brumback indicated the $1,000,000 was not consistent with the Proforma. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt there was $200,000 missing. Mr. Brumback indicated it will require fifteen positions to staff this function, seven of which are new. He reported the assistant superintendent for solid waste has been converted to a recycling representative. Commissioner Thomas questioned if these employees would fall under the labor contracts. Ms. Rice indicated they would. Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding being unable to lay off employees should it be found the program is not working. Ms. Rice indicated they could be laid off as there is no provision for retaining an individual if a position is not needed. Ms. Rice indicated there may be a concern regarding the pension plan and other issues. Commissioner Thomas stated he did not want a long term negative impact should the City cease the recycling program. Ms. Rice reiterated that lay off is allowable. Mr. Nystrom indicated there was not a $200,000 shortfall. Ms. Deptula indicated she has reviewed the information and there is a capital investment of $548,000 for trucks and does include the cost of borrowing the money. She stated essentially they will be buying $705,000 of equipment and it will cost $791,000 to pay for that over a lease/purchase term. Commissioner Thomas stated another confusing item is that normally buildings are not capitalized over five years, but twenty years. Mr. Nystrom agreed and stated the building and the ramp would have useful life greater then three to five years. He stated the key is the program can repay for the borrowing over a three-year period. Commissioner Thomas stated he just wanted to make sure the $791,000 pays back everything. Commissioner Deegan questioned that the actual cost of the trucks was $480,000. Ms. Deptula indicated it was. Commissioner Deegan questioned the equipment. Mr. Brumback indicated a less expensive version in which the dumpsters are manually raised without as many hydraulics will be used. Commissioner Deegan questioned if this adds to the work of the workers. Mr. Brumback indicated it did. The meeting recessed from 11:09 a.m. to 11:19 a.m. Ed Armstrong, representing Kimmins introduced Charles (Chip) Baker, Jr., President of Kimmins Recycling. Mr. Baker indicated they were a local company in Tampa with an operations office in Clearwater. He stated they also have experience in New York. Currently they serve 15,000 citizens in Pinellas County for recycling. They own their own recycling facility and have everything needed to process the material. He stated the recycling business is not new to the company. They will be using six trucks costing $86,000 apiece. He stated that their costs do not include the building, etc. He stated their staff will all wear uniforms, are highly paid and provided with incentives for performance. He stated eight trucks will actually be needed with one as a spare. They anticipate a set out rate of 50 to 55 percent. He stated the benefit of having a private hauler will be that it will add healthy competition. He indicated Kimmins is charging for the drop-off center due to a contamination problem requiring the materials be sorted. He questioned how Clearwater could deal with front end load containers when they only had recycling trucks. He indicated Kimmins would provide a mixture of equipment. Regarding telephone books, they participate in a program in Tampa where the books are taken to Jacksonville each year. This would also be done for the City of Clearwater. Mr. Baker indicated they felt they are the low bidder on the project especially in regard to single family residential. He did not understand the need for the drop-off center. He stated if the contract is provided to Kimmins, commercial recycling will be included. He also indicated revenues from the sale of recyclable will be credited against the City's bid. He stated costs that have been included are to truck the materials, bale them and process them. They will collect yard waste and have offered to provide the City with free mulch. They are a good solid company and believe the citizens will participate in the recycling program. Mayor Garvey questioned if the City's bid included resources the City already owns. Ms. Rice indicated they will not be using solid waste resources for recycling. Mr. Brumback indicated the Proforma does include one front end loader and driver. Commissioner Thomas reported his aides had spoken to Treasure Island, Pinellas County, and Tarpon Springs. He stated in Treasure Island they were informed Kimmins started out well, although a new management team was not as easy to work with. In Pinellas County it was indicated Kimmins did not comply with the contract and there was an inordinate turnover in personnel. Kimmins was unable to service any of the ten drop-off centers the County maintained. The County terminated the contract with Kimmins. In Tarpon Springs it was indicated initially there were problems, however they were doing well now. There were still missed pickups, however Kimmins does return when called regarding these missed pickups. Again there was concern regarding the large turnover in personnel. Commissioner Thomas questioned if this was old news or an ongoing problem. Mr. Baker indicated it was mostly old news but there have been problems in the past. He stated, in the Tarpon Springs program, it was two and a half years ago and it was a brand new program. As far as he knew, the service in Treasure Island was good and there is a month-to-month contract which can be canceled at any time. He stated Pinellas County reflects bitterness as Kimmins was the one that terminated the contract. He stated contamination of the recycled materials was abominable and Pinellas County was constantly changing things. Mr. Baker reiterated that Kimmins serves most cities in Pinellas County. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Kimmins had just gotten a contract with St. Lucie County. Mr. Baker indicated they had. He stated representatives of St. Lucie County came over unannounced and found Kimmins' service to be acceptable. Commissioner Deegan asked them to explain wheel-bin toters at $65/apiece in their bid. Mr. Baker indicated this was due to confusion in reading the bid. They assumed what was being referred to were the large bins that would be used in multi-family. What was intended were the small carts used for carrying the single family residential bins to the curb. He indicated the price for those would be substantially less. Commissioner Deegan asked if Kimmins had been requested to explain this matter. Ms. Rice indicated they had. Mr. Baker indicated another confusion in the bid had to do with multi-family and how it would be serviced. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Kimmins had an opportunity to see the City's bid. Mr. Baker indicated they had. He stated Kimmins' single family rate and drop-off service were substantially less than the City's. Commissioner Deegan questioned if there were any innovative community service ideas Kimmins had of which the City was not aware. Mr. Baker indicated they promote recycling, offer a computer and office paper program at no extra charge and also provide recycling for the schools. Commissioner Deegan questioned Mr. Baker's knowledge of the House Bill dealing with commercial recycling. Mr. Baker indicated municipalities cannot control recycling through flow control. Private recycling companies can go into a city and pick up recyclable materials from commercial establishments. He stated, however, it was not economical for a recycler to go into a city and pick and choose regarding where they will pick up these materials. He stated it is economically feasible when combined with single family and multi-family recycling. Commissioner Deegan stated with the City not being able to give an exclusive contract for commercial recycling, how Kimmins would deal with a non-exclusive contract. Mr. Baker indicated it should be in the contract that the recycling hauler make its best effort to enhance the commercial recycling. He stated in reality there would not be much competition as it is not economically feasible. Commissioner Deegan questioned the extra cost that should be included in the City bid for back door service. Mr. Brumback indicated without a medical reason the charge would be double to service a recycling bin set at the back door versus the curb. He said if there was a substantiated medical reason there would be no charge. Mr. Baker indicated Kimmins' charge would be $1.00 if there is no medical reason and it would be free if there was a medical reason. Commissioner Deegan questioned the charge for a replacement bin. Mr. Baker indicated Kimmins would charge $5.00. Mr. Brumback indicated the City would charge nothing. Commissioner Thomas expressed concerns regarding the recycling bins being open and questioned if there was a more practical way for homeowners to store the material. Mayor Garvey pointed out the material is supposed to be clean. Ms. Rice indicated there have been no problems the City has experienced with the open bins. Mr. Baker indicated there are lids made for the recycling bins. Commissioner Deegan questioned when Kimmins would be able to start if they were awarded the bid. Mr. Baker indicated in three months. Ms. Rice indicated that both bidders have been informed the City is looking at a start date of April 1, 1994. Commissioner Thomas questioned what the uniform would be for the Kimmins personnel. Mr. Baker indicated it would depend on the time of year. He also indicated that for new employees there is a 30 to 60 day trial period in which no uniform is issued. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the summer uniform is a T-shirt. Mr. Baker indicated it was a cotton shirt. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Kimmins received the contract what their goal for percentage of participation would be. Mr. Baker indicated he believed the goal of over 60 percent set-out rate was attainable. Commissioner Deegan questioned the incentive program for the Kimmins' employees and questioned if it was based on the time to do a route. Mr. Baker indicated that to some extent it was, however other factors such as safety, complaints and missed stops were factored in. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City had placed performance objectives and non-performance penalties in the contract. Ms. Rice indicated it was not in the contract, however it has been established for the City due to concerns of the Selection Committee. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Kimmins would have a problem with the performance standard in the contract. Mr. Baker indicated they would not. He indicated there are penalties under the St. Lucie County contract. A copy of the St. Lucie contract was requested. ITEM #2 - Award of Contract for Recycling (CM) The request for competitive proposals for recycling was sent to nineteen companies on June 4, 1993. A pre-bid conference was held June 16, 1993. As a result of this pre-bid conference several changes were made to the Request for Competitive Proposal. Eight proposals were submitted to the City. A review team appointed by the City Manager included Bill Baird, General Services Director; Bill Baker, Public Works Director; and John Scott, Utilities Customer Service Manager. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, was asked to head the team and to request the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce to suggest a citizen to be on the team. James McCurtain, Manager of Sears Countryside, was selected. Proposals were received from the following companies: 1. Boone Waste Industries 2. Browning-Ferris Industries of FL, Inc. 3. City of Clearwater 4. Disposal (Metro Recycling, Inc.) 5. Kimmins Recycling Corporation 6. Waste Aid Systems 7. Waste Collection Services, Inc. 8. Waste Management of Tampa Each review team member individually reviewed each of the eight proposals. The team met on July 19, 1993, and after much discussion, listed the top two firms as Kimmins and the City of Clearwater. Daniel Deignan, Finance Director, was asked to review the financial information and to call references for Kimmins. Kathy Rice and Bill Baird also called references. The team met again on Thursday, July 22, 1993, and focused on the price proposals, particularly for multi-family and commercial to rank the top two firms. After much discussion, it was decided to ask the top two firms to explain to the team their proposal and to provide more information about customer service. The multi-family bids were explained and re-reviewed. Mr. McCurtain's view was invaluable to the team. He was concerned both from a resident's and a business person's perspective that the City's bid did not include any guarantees. If a private company bids badly, they must make up the loss some other way but the same is not true of the City. Ms. Rice also expressed the perspective that it was easier to get into the recycling business than to get out of it because of the initial investment in capital. The team met with each of the top bidders on Monday, July 26, 1993. After review of the presentations, reference checks, financial information and a synopsis of the multi-family and single family rates, a vote was taken. There was a unanimous opinion that the City of Clearwater should be awarded the contract if a contract could be negotiated addressing two concerns. 1. That someone in the City have full responsibility for making the program work and that language be added to the contract to require an audit every year. If the independent audit showed a negative variance to the projections the City had made in the bid, then the whole program would be rebid. 2. That Commercial not be part of the contract since the law was so new and the City could not issue an exclusive contract as they could for single family and multi-family residences. The proposed contract has been submitted for the Commission's review. The dates of implementation were changed since trucks could not be ordered until the Commission approved the contract. Several negotiating meetings were held with Bob Brumback and Paul Nystrom. The committee asked that a business plan be submitted for the Commission's review. Ms. Rice reiterated that changes were made at the pre-bid conference. She also reported that all questions were responded to in writing and copied to all bidders. She stated the review team took their charge seriously to make sure they were objective in the evaluation of the bid. She stated in the initial review, three of the team ranked the City as the top company and two ranked Kimmins number one. She stated after the discovery of the problem with commercial recycling, it was eliminated from the bid. She stated concerns were expressed regarding the multi-family bid as it was difficult to compare the two and each group was asked to come back and make a presentation to the committee. She stated customer service was a big issue. Kimmins' financial references were also reviewed. She indicated the review team was concerned regarding the issues earlier enumerated by Commissioner Thomas. There were also concerns about being objective regarding the City's bid and providing a level playing field for all the bidders. Concerns were expressed regarding the multi-material drop-off center, and the team wished for this to be user-friendly. The team felt after working with both companies the City had submitted the best bid, although not the cheapest for single family pickup. The team recommends the City be awarded the contract based on recycling being totally separate from other City functions. It is also recommended the Budget Advisory Committee review the financial status of the program every year and if it is found not to be acceptable, the City re-bid the program. She reiterated that the Committee unanimously recommends the City be awarded the bid. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Brumback concurred with the assertion made by the Kimmins' representative that it is not economically feasible to do commercial recycling if they do not have the single family and multi-family. Mr. Brumback indicated he did not concur with this statement. He indicated that in the State Legislature the lobbyist had been willing to forfeit residential pickup if the bill would address commercial recycling. Commissioner Thomas stated he assumed the City planned to aggressively pursue commercial recycling. Mr. Brumback indicated they have a plan which will come back to the Commission. He stated the plan they propose would bring in $500,000 to the City in five years. Mr. Brumback stated he felt the Solid Waste Division of the City of Clearwater was one of the best solid waste companies in Florida. He stated it is controlled by the Commission and the citizens of Clearwater. He reported the City has been recycling for five years, does know what it is doing and knows Clearwater. He stated the City of Clearwater can tailor the program to meet community needs. Commissioner Thomas questioned if customers could be provided with a tote with wheels and a cover. Mr. Brumback indicated he did not have an estimate for that commodity. He stated program research has found the 18-gallon bin is convenient and popular. He stated in the pilot program there have not been any problems with contamination or odor. Mr. Armstrong, representing Kimmins, indicated they felt it was unfair to put senior city staff on a team to review a bid by city staff. He stated that while there was total confidence in their integrity, their bias could be questioned. He stated the Chamber's representative initially ranked Kimmins far superior to the City. He reported he Kimmins' bid is clearly lower in the single family recycling program. Regarding the reputation of Kimmins, St. Lucie representatives have reported their reputation is acceptable. He stated if the bid is awarded to Kimmins, privatization of this function would not call for an initial capital investment by the City nor would the City have to go through a rebidding expense should the City's services be found unacceptable. He indicated the sale of recyclable material is volatile. Mayor Garvey stated she knows the quality of work by the City and has confidence they will do a good job. She stated she did have concerns regarding the comments from other communities regarding Kimmins' service. Commissioner Deegan questioned what had made the votes change of those individuals that had originally ranked Kimmins first. Ms. Rice indicated customer service. Commissioner Deegan questioned the overall bottom line regarding the cost of the City's plan versus Kimmins. Mr. Brumback indicated over the five year period of the contract the cost to the City would be a quarter of a million dollars less than Kimmins. Ms. Rice indicated the team did not evaluate the bids in this manner due to the problems with the discrepancies in the bid for multi-family. She stated the numbers can be argued either way. Commissioner Thomas indicated the costs are almost identical but the City comes out ahead in multi-family. The City goes way ahead in commercial if they are able to perform. He requested strong performance standards in the contract. Ms. Rice indicated it was in the contract that if the City does not perform they lose the bid. Commissioner Thomas requested it be understood if the City does not perform, those who do not will be terminated. Ms. Rice indicated the City Manager has said Mr. Brumback will be held accountable for the performance of the recycling program. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Brumback felt that was reasonable. Mr. Brumback indicated it was if he was allowed to run the recycling program the way he wants to. Mr. Armstrong indicated Kimmins can guarantee a price while the City cannot. Commissioner Deegan questioned if Kimmins was $137,000 less over the five year period. Mr. Armstrong indicated this was a conservative amount. Commissioner Deegan felt unless there was a substantial reason to believe the citizens would be paying considerably more and receiving less service, the program should be privatized. Ms. Rice indicated the review team agreed with Commissioner Deegan. She stated that on the dollars both bids were fairly equal, but there were concerns regarding other factors such as customer service, community service, past experience and background. Commissioner Deegan expressed concerns regarding additional employees impacting the cost for the City in worker's compensation. Ms. Rice indicated this has been factored into the cost for the City. Commissioner Deegan questioned the performance indicator, saying that Kimmins had proposed 60 percent set-out rate while the City was projecting a 50 percent participation rate. He questioned why it was lower than the participation rate from the pilot program. Commissioner Deegan also referenced an article sent to the Commission by Mr. Brumback. It stated incentives were used to encourage residents to recycle and that the cost of solid waste was one-half to those who did. Mr. Brumback indicated they wanted to get into the new technology, etc. before these types of incentives are suggested. Commissioner Thomas felt the program had to either have teeth by making it mandatory or an incentive to encourage participation. Mayor Garvey felt first the Commission needed to decide who would get the contract and then expand from there. Commissioner Deegan requested an explanation regarding the sinking fund for the trucks. Ms. Rice indicated the Solid Waste Division had been informed not to use solid waste trucks in the bid. Mr. Brumback indicated this was in order to provide a level playing field in the bidding process. Commissioner Deegan questioned how the City would guarantee the prices for five years. Mr. Brumback indicated these had been calculated based on labor contracts, etc. and unless there was double digit inflation they felt comfortable they could meet those projections. He indicated Kimmins could not guarantee cost either. Mr. Armstrong indicated Kimmins has posted a performance bond. Commissioner Deegan questioned if there was any public input. Bob Wright, representing the Coalition of Homeowners, stated they had not seen an area where the government could do a job for less than a private industry. He stated the review committee was basically city employees. He stated it would be easier for the City to get into recycling if the private company fails rather than get out of it if the City fails. Mayor Garvey felt the City staff should be given an opportunity to perform. Commissioner Deegan indicated that philosophically he favored privatization if it was reasonable to do so. He stated he believed Kimmins has learned from this experience. He stated the only saving feature of the City's bid is a 17 percent return on investment. Commissioner Berfield stated she thought customer service was a major issue. She stated the City does get more involved in community activity. Regarding safety, she felt the City has a more stable personnel base. She stated that while usually government does not do things as cheaply as private enterprise, in this case there is an advantage to using the City's program. She stated the City should be held to strict standards. She agreed City staff should be "given a shot" at providing this service. Commissioner Fitzgerald stated like Commissioner Berfield, the area of service is a major concern to him. He stated the Solid Waste Department has done a tremendous job. He stated the methodology has been worked out through the pilot project. The numbers between Kimmins and the City are extremely close. He felt the determining factor was how much control the City would have once the program was started. He reported he lived in an area bounded by the County in which private companies deal with solid waste and that the difference in service is noticeable. He expressed concerns regarding the instability of the work force in a private company. Commissioner Thomas moved to award a five year recycling contract to the City of Clearwater. The motion was duly seconded. Mayor Garvey recommended looking at providing service in the enclaves. Commissioner Thomas urged City staff to really think as an entrepreneur in this area. He requested they consider finding a way to cut down to one garbage pickup per week. Ms. Rice reiterated there will be seven additional employees with this program. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Verbal Reports Staff provided to the Commission the presentation that had been given to the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Tourist Development Bureau urging their support for converting the Maas Brothers department store into a convention, conference and entertainment center. ITEM #4A - Holiday on the Islands The Holiday on the Islands Committee has requested the City co-sponsor the event to take place on Sunday, December 5, 1993, at least to the extent of waiving the liability insurance requirements. Ms. Rice indicated the Committee has filed an application for a special event permit. Commissioner Thomas stated the event is the turning on of the lights. Commissioner Thomas moved to waive the insurance liability. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioner Deegan questioned why the Commission should do this. Commissioner Thomas indicated a single organization was not responsible but this was a community program. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. ITEM #4B - Rare Environmentally Sensitive Land and ITEM #4C - Walgreens rezoning at Morritt Center - Hercules & Gulf-to-Bay Continued. ITEM - City Hall Ms. Rice indicated a decision was needed regarding whether or not there was to be a referendum in January regarding City Hall. She expressed concerns regarding a possible six-month delay. Commissioner Deegan questioned from where a six-month delay had been referenced. Ms. Rice indicated this had been reported in the newspapers. Commissioner Berfield stated she has requested staff prepare statistics regarding the actual savings from consolidation. It was suggested this be put on the agenda. It was the consensus to agenda this for Thursday night. Commissioner Thomas also requested information regarding what would be done with the property the City vacated. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned what would be placed on the agenda for Thursday night. Commissioner Deegan indicated the Commission has to decide to go with the previous decision to locate the City Hall on the bluff or change. It was requested that Rowe & Associates be in attendance. Commissioner Deegan requested the two agreements needed for the Jolley Trolley be on Thursday night's agenda. Ms. Deptula indicated only the funding agreement would be on the agenda, the leasing agreement will be available in sixty days. The meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m.