Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-20 Special MeetingNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 31 SPECIAL MEETING, JULY 20, 2009 PAGE 654 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Special Meeting on Monday, July 20, 2009, at 11:10 a.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Jason R. Thompson; Commissioner Robert G. Greer; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; Deputy Clerk Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County Manager Bruce T. Shell. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order and reported that the purpose of the meeting is to consider the Solid Waste Management Request for Proposal and Contract. APPROVAL OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT County Manager Bruce Shell reported that Gersham, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. consultant Bob Brickner is present to answer questions and presented the following overview of the draft Request for Proposal: The Solid Waste Management Request for Proposal is divided into the following parts: · Recycling: The Proposer must, at a minimum, provide the services the County presently provides, including drop-off sites, household hazardous waste and electronic waste collection, and Christmas tree recycling. · Landfill: The Proposer must, at a minimum, maintain the active permitted status of the county Landfill, and may propose the use of other landfills. If a transfer station is to be used, the Proposer must provide information on it. · WASTEC: The Proposer may or may not wish to use WASTEC. If the proposal is not to use WASTEC, then the Proposer must include a plan for its de-commissioning or alternative use. · Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling: The Proposer must, at a minimum, develop a facility or use the Countys existing facility, to recycle at least 10% of the construction and demolition waste stream. · Landfill Gas: The Proposer may develop a system to productively use methane gas generated in the Landfill. At a minimum, the Proposer must meet possible future regulations to flare or otherwise treat the gas. The key form will require the Proposer to show the service fee charge on a $/ton basis for year one of the ten-year contract and include each of the four possible annual tonnage ranges that encompass a total range from 150,000 tons/year to 450,000 tons/year. The Request for Proposal can be modified to have more than four possible tonnage ranges with the recommendation that the RFP be modified to reflect seven tonnage bands, in 50,000 ton increments, with the range being 150,000 tons/year to 450,000 tons/year. The Proposer is required to give annual cost adjustment factors to accommodate possible fuel price and cost-of-living increases over the remaining nine years of the contract. The County is guaranteeing at least 150,000 tons/year of solid waste. If tonnage exceeds 450,000 tons/year, the County and Proposer likely would re-enter contract negotiations. Much of the complexity and data requirements that were initially built into the Request for Proposal have been eliminated. Instead, the Proposer is required to provide a proposal summary; an open-ended business and operation plan; and environmental/carbon footprint information that support the proposal. For the Boards consideration is a draft contract that will be modified and streamlined depending on the negotiations with the selected Proposer. The Request for Proposal includes provisions for submitting bids, requesting additional information and other standard requirements and provides for a ten-year term, with two five- year renewals. Discussion was held regarding concerns about the Request for Proposal (RFP) document and the process being used currently. It was noted that one of the main goals is to find the most economical way to dispose of the Countys waste. County Manager Shell explained the challenges in developing an RFP with very little subjectivity while providing a flexible venue for the Proposer, with the result being an RFP that provides a weighted analysis for the Countys use. In response to Board questions, County Manager Shell stated the County would not be allowed to bid on this matter as it would be a conflict of interest. In continued discussion, a request was made for a modification that would request a proposal for an increased level of service for recycling drop-off sites than current service levels and if a higher percentage is obtainable, that the 10% C&D recycling goal be increased as it is currently too low. Gersham, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. consultant Bob Brickner provided a brief overview of the use of RFPs and the process used to arrive at the Countys draft RFP with the ultimate goal being a long-term contract. He confirmed that in an effort to avoid becoming a research and development site, the document requires references and other details to show proposed techniques are proven. In reviewing proposals, the Countys advantage is that it has a good baseline from its current operation to use as a reference/comparison point. In regard to C&D recycling, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 31 SPECIAL MEETING, JULY 20, 2009 PAGE 655 currently a very minimal system is being used and the RFP does not put a limit on what a Proposer can submit for this system. In response to Board comments, Environmental Management Director John Hubbard reported during the last fiscal year the City of Wilmington had 5,000 tons recycling material via curbside service while the County had 3,000 tons via drop-off sites. The City has a recycling budget of approximately $900,000 whereas Environmental Managements recycling division budget is approximately $780,000. Recycling is expensive and is not a breakeven service. The market is cyclical but recycling remains popular with citizens highlighting that although the overall participation rate is low recycling increased 35% two years ago and increased 23% last year. In response to Board concerns, County Manager Shell stated that staff will make the requested changes to the tonnages bands, adjustment to Cell 6D costs, provide additional verbiage clarifying that if there is a better solution to one of the aspects that it be included in the proposals, request a proposal reflecting an increased level of recycling drop-off service than current service levels, and if a higher percentage is obtainable, a goal of more than 10% for C&D recycling. In closing, Chairman Davis polled each Commissioner with the consensus of the Board being as follows: · Staff was directed to make the recommended changes to the RFP. · The RFP will be advertised as appropriate. · The Proposers will be given approximately eight weeks to submit their proposals. · Staff will take no more than four weeks to evaluate the proposals. · Staff was directed to negotiate with Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. consultant Bob Brickner to expand the scope of services to include the evaluation of the submitted proposals with the assistance of staff. · The Consultant/Staff will bring a recommendation to the Board for consideration. A copy of the Executive Summary memo and Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Management is available for review in the County Managers Office. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Davis requested a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Caster, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Thompson, to adjourn the meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Deputy Clerk to the Board