03/20/2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Gray went over the RFP Options and pointed out the reasoning for considering "universal services" was the possibility that it may help minimize cost increases. She mentioned with either "subscription service" or "universal service", there was an option for non -carted yard waste (current system) or carted yard waste. She emphasized the selection committee was trying to keep the cost increases to a minimum, improve collection system efficiency, and consider community aesthetics with carted yard waste collection. Ms. Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager, reviewed evaluation criteria in the RFP and then displayed a chart of the preliminary ranking of proposals by the selection committee, and explained the cost difference of the various options. She pointed out the range of proposals included all five of the responsive proposals received and reminded that the costs were in the preliminary stage of evaluations and subject to change during negotiations. 6. SWDD BOARD COMMENTS / QUESTIONS Chairman Adams asked if the Board had any questions, comments, and concerns for staff. In response to a question by Commissioner Loar, Mr. Mehta stated the surrounding counties and municipalities had gone to "universal service" while the unincorporated area of Indian River County and the City of Fellsmere currently had "subscription service". He believed that "universal service" would reduce illegal dumping and there would be a savings to the taxpayer. Vice Chairman Flescher inquired on the percentage of individuals within the unincorporated area of Indian River County utilizing the current "subscription service". Mr. Mehta replied that based on reports, over 70% of the residents in the unincorporated area of the County subscribe for garbage service. Mr. Mehta, in response to questions raised by Vice Chairman Flescher, brought up whether the Selection Committee's recommendation included at the next meeting would be based on the current pricing received to date. Mr. Mehta stated it was the Selection Committee's plan to come back to the Board with a recommendation for service within the next three to four weeks. After the Board made a decision on the option of service, the Selection Committee would then recommend that the Board allow them to negotiate with the top two or three firms for the contract with the goal of getting a reduced price. For the record, Mr. Mehta stated that the Franchise Agreement was only for the collection of solid waste, bulk collection, and yard waste, and noted there was a separate Franchise Agreement for the Customer Convenience Centers. Commissioner Earman received confirmation from Mr. Mehta that the County had "universal recycling service" throughout the unincorporated area of the County and the costs were included in the annual landfill assessment on the property tax bill. He brought up the challenges with recycling in terms of contamination. He reported that staff does audits in various communities looking for contaminates in the recycling carts and has issued warnings and at times pulled an individual's cart. Commissioner Earman referred to the carted yard waste and asked if there would be a charge for additional yard waste. Mr. Mehta stated in the Franchise Agreement, one 96 -gallon cart would be provided and homeowners would be able to purchase additional carts for a one-time cost and could purchase up to four carts per household; however, for excessive yard waste there was an optional service for the yard waste to be picked up in bulk at a cost borne by the resident. Solid Waste Disposal District Special Call Meeting Page 3 March 20, 2024