2010-27338 ResoRESOLUTION N0. 2010-27338
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSERS PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 60-08/09 FOR THE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE, YARD TRASH, AND BULK WASTE,
AND OPERATION OF THE CITY'S GREEN WASTE FACILITY (THE "RFP");
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TWO (2) TOP-RANKED PROPOSERS, WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC. AND
CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.: AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS WITH ONE OF THE AFORESTATED PROPOSER,
AND SAID AGREEMENT ENCOMPANSSING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
SET FORTH IN THE RFP AND THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE
THERETO; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT
ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT AT THE BILLING
RATE OF 525.57 PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT PER MONTH UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT
NEGOTIATIONS ARE FINALIZED.
WHEREAS, Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 60-U8/U9 for The Collection and Disposal
of Residential Solid Waste, Yard Trash and Bulk Waste, and The Operation of The City's Green
Waste Facility was issued on October 28, 2009, with an opening date of November 30, 2009;
and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the RFP is to establish a contract, by means of sealed
Proposals, for a qualffied provider of solid waste collection services to collect and dispose of all
residential solid waste and yard trash from all single-family homes, multiple dwelling buildings of
eight (8} or fewer units under common ownership, and the operation of the city's green waste
facility; and
WHEREAS, apre-proposal conference to provide information to proposers submitting a
response was held on November 10, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2009, BldNet Issued bid notices to 44 prospective proposers
and Bidsync issued bid notices to 1512 prospective proposers, which resulted in the receipt of
six proposals: and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC)
No. 332-20053, appointed an Evaluation Committee {the "Committee"} consisting of the
Following individuals:
David Ballard, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
Robert D. Fairless, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
Michael Lass, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
Julio Magrisso, Assistant Director, City of Miami Beach Parks and Recreation
Rhonda Mcpherson, Assistant Director, City of Miami Beach Sanitation Division
Ramon Suarez, Finance Manager, City of Miami Beach Finance Department
Daniel Veitia, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on December 22, 2009, and was provided with an
overview of the project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the
Government In the Sunshine Law, Past Performance Evaluation Surveys, listened to the
presentations and engaged in question and answer sessions, and evaluated the proposals
based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, upon the conclusion of the presentations, the Committee scoring and
ranking resulted In Choice Environmental Services, Inc. and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. receiving
the same number of first place votes two (2) each; and
WHEREAS, the Committee further deliberated and decided that either Choice
Environmental Services, Inc. or Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. were capable of providing the needed
services; and
WHEREAS, Choice Environmental Services, Inc. received one more second place vote
than Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., and the Committee voted for the following ranking:
Top-ranked: Choice Environmental Services, Inc.;
Second-ranked: Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Clty Manager recommends that the Clty Commission authorize
negotiations with the two (2) top-ranked proposers, Choice Environmental Services, Inc. and
Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., in order to obtain the lowest possible wst; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager further recommends that the City Commission authorizes
to contract on amonth-to-month basis with Waste Management at the billing rate of $25.57 per
residential unit per month until such time that negotiations are finalized.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and Clty
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking
of proposers pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 60-08109 for the Collection and
Disposal of Residential Solid Waste, Yard Trash, and Bulk Waste, and Operation of the City's
Green Waste Facility {the "RFP"); authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with
the two (2) top-ranked proposers, Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. and Choice Environmental
Services, Inc; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement upon the
completion of successful negotiations with one of the aforestated proposer, and said Agreement
encompassing the terms and conditions as set forth in the RFP and the successful proposal in
response thereto; and further authorizing the Clty Manager to contract on a month-to-month
basis with Waste Managemeni at the billing rate of $25.57 per residential unit per month until
such time that negotiations are finalized.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 3 day of February 2010.
ATTEST:
~_
CI Y CLERK M O
APPROVED AS TO
JMG/RA/GL _ FORM & LANGUAGE
~) & FOf~ EXECUTION
T 1AGENDA120101February 31RegularlWasteHaulingReso.doc ~ / _~
~ /' 1 _.
1
t orney M at
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager For The Collection And Disposal
Of Residential Solid Waste, Yard Trash, And Bulk Waste, And Operation Of The City's Green Waste
Facility (The "RFP-); Authorizing The Administration To Enter Into Negotiations With The Two (2) Top-
Ranked Proposers, Waste Pro Of Florida, Inc., And Choice Environmental Services Inc.; Further
Authorizing The City Manager To Contract, On A Month-To-Month Basis, With Waste Management. At
The Billing Rate Of $25.57 Per Residential Unit Per Munth Until Such Tlme That Negotiations Are
Finalized, And A New A reement Is Ap roved B The Cit Commission.
Ke Irrtended Outcome Su orted:
Improve Cleanliness of Miami Beach Rights-of-Way, Especially in Business Areas.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Cleanliness appears as one of the most
important areas affecting resident's quality of Itfe. Cleanliness is ranked number 4 by residents as
one of the changes that will make Miami Beach a better place to live, work, play or visit. 76% of
residents rated arba e( trash collection as ood or excellent.
ranking resulted in a tie between Choice Environmental Services, Inc. ("Choice") and Waste Pro of
Florida, Inc. ("Waste Pro"). Both Proposers had the same number of first place votes -two (2) each.
Waste Pro had 449 total points, while Choice had 441 total points.
The Committee members agreed that either Choice or Waste Pro was capable of providing excellent
service to the City. After much discussion, the Committee decided to break the tie between Choice
and Waste Pro by determining who had the most second-place votes. Based on the fact that Choice
had one more second place vote than Waste Pro, the Committee voted, three (3) in favor and two (2)
opposed, to recommend the following to the City Manager: Top-ranked: Choice Environmental
Services, Inc.; and Sewnd-ranked: Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.
In addition to wnsidering the Committee's recommendation, the City Manager has exercised his own
due diligence and recommends that the City Commission authorize negotiations with the two (2) top-
ranked proposers, Choice Environmental Services, Inc. end Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., in order to
obtain their best and final offer.
Concurrent with acceptance of the City Manager's recommendation pursuant to this RFP, the City
Commission also needs to authorize the Clty Manager to contract, on a month-to-month basis. with
Waste Manayement at the current billing rate of $25.57 per residential unit, per month, until such time
that negotiations are finalised and a new agreement is approved by the City Commission.
Source of
Funds:
QBPI
m M l AM I B EAC H AGENDA ITEM ~2 -I n
~ DATE?-
~_ MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention CenMr Urive, Miami Eseoch, Florida 331 S9, vww.miomlbeachll.8ov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO• Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FkOM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: February 3, 2010 ~
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND GITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSERS
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 60-08109 FOR THE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE, YARD
TRASH, AND BULK WASTE, AND OPERATION OF THE CITY'S GREEN
WASTE FACILITY (THE "RFP"); AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TWO (2) TOP-RANKED
PROPOSERS, WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC. AND CHOICE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT, ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS, WITH
WASTE MANAGEMENT, AT THE BILLING RATE OF 525.57 PER
RESIDENTIAL UNIT PER MONTH, UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT
NEGOTIATIONS ARE FINALIZED, AND A NEW AGREEMENT IS
APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
A residential solid waste collection contract was awarded to Waste Management Inc., of
Florida (Waste Management) which expires on December 31, 2009.
On October 17, 2007, the Mayor and Commission authorized the first one-year term
renewal; and on December 10, 2008, the Mayor and Commission authorized for Waste
Management to be on a month-to-month basis, commencing on January 1, 2009, and
ending on March 31, 2009, and further refer the issue of whether or not to exercise the
renewal term under the Agreement to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee.
On January 28, 2009, the Mayor and Commission authorized the second one year term
renewal, commencing retroactively on January t, 2009, and ending on December 31,
2009
On October 14, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance of a
Request for Proposals for the Collection and Disposal of Residential Solid Waste, Yard
Trash and Bulk Waste and the Operation of the City's Green Waste Facility; and further
approved amonth-to-month extension with Waste Management, Inc., until such time that
a new agreement is approved by the City Commission.
Commission Mema~andum
February 3, 2010
RFP No.60.0i3/09-Residential Waste Co!lecUOn Services
Page 2 of 16
Request for Proposals No. 60-08/09 for the Collection and Disposal of Residential Solid
Waste, Yard Trash and Bulk Waste, and the Operation of the City's Green Waste Facility
(the "RFP") was issued on October 28, 2009, with an opening date of November 30,
2009.
The purpose of the RFP was to solicit proposals for a qualified provider of solid waste
collection services. The successful proposer shall collect and dispose of all residential
solid waste and yard trash from all single-family homes, multiple dwelling buildings of
eight (8) or fewer units (under common ownership, as identified by the list that will be
provided by the City), and operate the City's Green Waste Facility. .
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The RFP's Scope of Services addresses schedules, frequency, specific functions of a
solid waste contractor, equipment, response time, special events, and customer servica.
The total average residential accounts being serviced monthly is approximately 6,373
with approximately 1,000 tons of residential solid waste and yard trash and bulk waste
being collected per month. (See Attachment 1).
RFP PROCESS
A pre-proposal conference to provide Information to proposers submitting a response
was held on November 10, 2009. Additionally, BidNet issued bid notices to 44
prospective proposers, and Bidsync issued bid notices to 1512 prospective proposers,
which resulted in the receipt of the following six (ti) proposals:
Choice Environmental Services Inc.
Richfield Equities, LLC
Southern Waste Systems, LLC
Waste Management Inc. Of Florida
Waste Pro Of Florida
Waste Services Of Florida, Inc.
On December 1, 2009, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 332-2009,
appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee') consisting of the Following
individuals: ~
• David Ballard, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
• Robert D. Fairless, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
• Michael Lass, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
• Julio Magrisso, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director
• Rhonda Mcpherson, Assistant Sanitation Director
• Ramon Suarez, Finance Manager
• Daniel Veitia, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
Committee members David Ballard and Michael Lass were unable to attend because of
Illness and prior commitments, respectively.
Commission Memorandum
February 3, 20f 0
RFP No.60-08K19-Residential waste Colfecfion SeMces
Paye 3 n( 16
On December 22, 2009, the Committee convened and was provided information on the
RFP; Cone of Silence and Sunshine Law; Past Performance Evaluation Surveys; and
Evaluation Criteria for the Committee to consider in making its recommendation.
The Committee was instructed to utilize the following Evaluation Criteria, set forth in the
RFP as follows:
Evaluation Criteria: Weight
Experience and Qualifications of the Proposer 30 pts
Experience and Qualifications of Management Team 10 pts
Proposed Cost 40 pts
Methodology and Approach 10 pts
Past Performance (based on surveys and the
Administration's due diligence) 10 ots
Total: 100 pts
The Committee was also provided with presentations from each proposer, followed by
question and answer sessions for the Committee to consider in making its
recommendation.
EVALUATION COMMITTEE DELIBERATI
Following conclusion of presentations, the Committee discussed the information
provlded by Proposers and proceeded with their deliberations.
The results of the Committee's scoring and ranking were very close. In determining the
top ranked proposer, the evaluation criteria required the Comrnitlee to select the top
ranked firm based on the rnajoriry of first place votes. The Committee's scoring and
ranking resulted in a tie between Choice Environmental Services, Inc. ("Choice") and
Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. ("Waste Pro"). Both Proposers had the same number of first
place votes -two (2) each.
The Committee discussed whether to break the lie based on the number of second
place votes or based on the total amount of points. Waste Pro had 449 total points, while
Choice had 441 total points. The Committee decided to break the tie based on the
number of second place votes. Based on the fact that Choice had one more second
place vote than Waste Pro, the Committee voted, three (3) in favor and two (2) opposed,
as follows:
Top-ranked: Choice Environmental Services, Inc.; and
Second-ranked: Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.
The Committee members agreed that either Choice Environmental Services, Inc. or
Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. was capable of providing excellent services to the City. After
much discussion, the Committee decided to break the tie between Choice and Waste
Pro by determining who had the most second-place votes.
Cornntissron Memruanr4um
FeW vary $, ?040
fdFY No.ti0-08r0~Resldenflat Waste Collection Servires
Page 4 of iG
The tabulated results are as follows
Robert
Fairless Rhonda
McPherson Danlel
Veltia Julio
Ma ris
so Ramon
Suarez
Totals Ranklns~
Order
Choice _
Environmental 93 2 85 2 82 3 97 (1) 84 1 441 1
Waste Pro of
Florida 87 3) 90 1 96 1 94 4 82 2 4
49 2
.
Southern Waste
Systems 95 1 00 6 88 (2) 95 2 80 3 418 3
Waste Services of
Florida 77 4 70 4 73 5 95 (2) 75 5 390 4
Waste
Management Inc.
of Florida 72 6 80 (3 77 4 93 5 79 4 401 5
Richfield E uities_ 73 5 64 5 65 6 81 6 fit (fi) °, ~ ; i i',
#'s 1 #'s 2 (#'s 3) #'s 4 #'s 5 #'s 6
Choice _
Environmental 2 2 1
Richfield E ultles 2 3
Southern Waste
S stems 1 2 1 1
Waste
Management Inc.
of Florida 1 2 1 1
Waste Pro of _
Florida 2 1 1 1
Waste Services of _
Florida 1 2 2
Commission Memorandum
February 3, 2010
RFP No. tiU-UEV09-Residential Waste Collection Services
Page 6 07 iG
PROPOSED COST
As required by the RFP, the Proposers submitted the following proposed billing rates: R]
1. Residential Solid Waste & Yard Waste Pick-up, twice a week, to include (4) bulk pick-
ups per calendar Year.
Monthly per Unit (approx 6,373 units)
Choice Environmental Services $29.75
Waste Pro $30.87
Southern Waste Systems, LLC $23.95
Waste Services of Florida, Inc. $35.58
Waste Management Inc. of Florida $38.68
Richfield Equities, LLC $34.84
2. Operation of the City's Green Waste Facility
Month I
Choice Environmental Services $0.22
Waste Pro $3.00
Southern Waste 3yatems, LLC $5,ODU.UU
Waste Services of Florida, Inc. $16 360.00 ~
Waste Management Inc. of Florida $1.00 ~
Richfield Equities, LLC $1.47
3. Residential solid waste and yard waste pick-up, twice a week, to include (4) bulk pick-
ups par calendar year (Service only, the City will be responsible to reimburse the
disposal coat)
Monthly per Unit (approx 6,373 units)
Choice Environmental Services $22.49
Waste Pro $21.30
Southern Waste S stems, LLC $14.41
Waste Services of Florida, Inc. $24.44
Waste Mana ement Inc. of Florida $28.72
Richfeld Equities, LLC $25.73
2 Although Southern Waste Systems (SWS) was the lowest bidder, the City Manager's
decision to not recommend SWS is based in part on a court order that was entered in an
Administrative Hearing on behaH of Broward County Environmental Protection and
Growth Management Department. The Hearing Officer concluded that Sun Recycling, LLC,
an affiliated tympany of SWS, had deviated from County Code and licensing requirements
by its continued and widespread noncompliance with solid waste restrictions. As a result
of that finding, civil penalties were imposed on Sun Recycling, LLC. The Administrative
Hearing Examiner ordered fines totaling $245,652 (See Exhibit 1).
Cornmissinn Memorandum
February 3. 2070
RFP No.60-OW09-Residential Waste Collection Servires
Pago G of 16
Proposers were required to provide an all-inclusive monthly cost per unit to collect and
dispose the residential solid waste and the monthly cost of only collecting the residential
solid waste with the City paying the disposal fee. This was done to see what option was
more beneficial to the City. The disposal fee, also known as the "tipping fee", is the fee
the County charges per ton of waste delivered to the County landfill.
The current "tipping fee" is $59.77 per ton. Currently the amount collected per month
averages 1,050 tons. If the City is to pay the "tipping fee", the cost is calculated as
follows: $59.77/ton x 1,050 tons / 6,373 units = $9.74 per unit, plus $0.50 for
administrative vests yields a cost of $10.34 per unit. This cost is higher than the cost
offered by Choice of $7.26 per unit and Waste Pro of $9.57.
In addition, the risk of collecting and disposing larger quantities (tons) of solid waste
material is now assumed by the contractors 'rf the City were to pay for the disposal cost,
the risk would be shifted to the City. Therefore, the option of having the City pay for the
disposal cost is not a preferred option.
The City had also requested that proposers provide a cost per unit without the disposal
cost because it was believed that the impact of single stream recycling could have
reduced signHicantly the number of tons per month being currently collected. The City
has collected single stream recycling data for about a year, and all indicators are that the
amount of recycled material (tons) collected has stabilized and the total amount of
municipal solid waste collected has been maintained at an average of 1,050 per month.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMENDATION
Following his review of the Committee's recommendations, the City Manager exercises
his own due diligence and, in making his recommendation to the City Commission, the
City Manager offers the following options for consideration:
Options 1: Authorize the Administration to negotiate an Agreement with the
Committee's top-ranked proposer, Choice Environmental Services, Inc.,
for a monthly cost of $29.97 per unit (household). This represents a
monthly cost increase of $4.40 per unit, or an additional cost of $52.80
per year per unit.
Option 2: Authorize the Administration to negotiate with the Committee's two (2)
top-ranked proposers, Choice Environmental Services, Inc. and Waste
Pro of Florida, Inc., in order to obtain their respective best and final offers.
Choice Environmental Services, Inc. has proposed a monthly fee of
$29.97 per unit and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. has proposed a monthly
fee of $33.87 per unit. Both proposers have proposed rates that are
higher than the current rate of $25.57.
Commission Memorandum
February 3, 2010
RFP No. &>-OH/O~Residential Waste Collecdon Services
Page 7 of 76
The recommendation to authorize simultaneous negotiations with both Choice
Environmental Services, Inc. and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. has been utilized in the past.
In past instances, the two (2) top-ranked firms sign'rficantly reduced their cost and
provided the City with "value-added" itemslservices.
The Commission may also Consider altemative service deliveries for example:
The City Commission could consider the change in service from the current back door
service to a curb side service. Based on proposals received in response to this RFP, it is
estimated that the monthly fee could be reduced by about $4.00 per unit.
Additionally, the City Commission may consider the change in service from the current
back door service to an automated curb side service. Again, based on proposals
received In response to this RFP, it is estimated that the monthly fee could be reduced
potentially by about $4.50 per unit, only slightly lower than the above service delivery
change.
It is very important to highlight that changing to an automated curb side service would
reduce the service volume available for disposal for Miami Beach residents. Currently
residents are allowed to place trash containers and up to eight (8) bags of yard clippings
twice per week. Under this altemative, residents would be limited to a single ninety (90)
gallon trash wntainer collected twice (2) a week.
In addition, the City Commission could consider the closure of the City's Green Waste
Facility, which over the past years has been underutilized. Current volumes being
delivered to the Green Waste Facility are on an average eighty (80) tons per month. The
Green Waste Facility has a monthly capacity of three hundred and fifty (350) tons per
month. By closing the Green Waste Facility, Choice's proposal would be reduced by
$0.22 or a monthly price of $29.75 per unit, Waste Pro would be reduced by $3.00 for a
monthly price of $30.87 per unit.
CONCLUSION
The City Manager recommends that the Commission adopt option 2. This option is the
best likelihood of providing our residents with no change in service delivery with the
lowest possible increase in cost.
In the event the City Commission accepts the City Manager's recommendation (pursuant
to option 2) and authorizes simultaneous negotiations between the two (2) top-ranked
proposers, the results of the negotiations and proposed agreement will be presented to
the City Commission for consideration al its regularly scheduled meeting in March or
April 2010.
Accordingly, the City Manager recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt
the attached Resolution, accepting the recomrnendatien of the City Manager pertaining
to the ranking of proposers pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 60-08109, for
the Collection and Disposal of Residential Solid Waste, Yard Trash, and Bulk Waste,
and Operation of the City's Green Waste Facility (the "RFP"); and authorizing the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the two (2) tap-ranked proposers, Choice
Environmental Services Inc., and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.
Commission Memorandum
February 3, 2010
RFP Nu. (i0-O8r0~Residentiaf Waste CollecBon Services
Page 8 of 76
Concurrent with acceptance of the Cily Manager's recommendation pursuant to this
RFP, the City Commission also needs to authorize the City Manager to contract, on a
month-to-month basis, with Waste Management at the current billing rate of $25.57 per
residential unit, per month, until such time that negotiations are finalized and a new
agreement is approved by the City Commission.
JMGlTHlFHB/GL
T:~AGENUAI'!Ut UU-ebruxry 3Uiegular+WasteHaulingMnmo.AOc
Commission Memorandum
February 3, 2010
RFP No.60.08r09-RxsidenliHl Waste Collection Services
Page y o/ 16
ATTACHMENTI
COLLECTION SERVICE OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE AND YARD TRASH
1.1 Description of Work: The successful proposer (hereinafter, the Contractor) shall
collect and dispose of all residential solid waste and yard trash from all single-
family homes, multiple dwelling buildings of eight (8) or fewer units (under
common ownership as identified by the list that will be provided by the City). The
Contractor shall also remove debris such as fallen branches from the Swale
areas during regular pick-ups.
1.2 Frequency of Collection: The Contractor shall collect solid waste From places
of residence within the contract collection area at least two (2) times per week,
with collections at least three (3) days apart. The Contractor shall collect yard
trash at curbside every scheduled garbage pick-up day of the week.
1.3 Holfdav: The only holiday with no service to residents will be Christmas Day.
1.4 Hours of Collection: Collection shall begin no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and shall
cease no later than 7:00 P.M. In the case of an emergency, collection may be
permitted at times not allowed by this paragraph, provided the Contractor has
received prior approval from the City Manager, to be later evidenced by a written
memorandum confirming the approval. Should the Contractor not confirm and
obtain in writing the approval to operate on an emergency basis, it shall be
conclusively presumed that the Contractor had not obtained such approval.
1.5 Point of Pickup of Residential 8 Multiple Dwellina Garbaae: Collections of
garbage and rubbish shall be at the house backyard or side yard and at ground
level.
1.6 Receptacle: The Contractor shall be required to pick up all garbage and rubbish
from residential units which have been properly prepared and stored for
collection as follows:
All garbage, trash, and rubbish shall be placed in a garbage can or in such other
plastic disposal bag and shall be placed at curbside or at such other single
collection point as may be agreed upon by the Contractor and the customer.
Usual household trash shall either be placed in containers where it shall be
collected in the same manner as garbage or at curbside. Non-containerized
trash shall be collected providing that it does not exceed four (4) feet in length
nor be greater than fifty (50) pounds in weight for any piece or segment of such
materials.
1.7 Method of Collection of Residential Garbaae: The Contractor shall make
collections with a minirnurn of noise and disturbance to the householder Any
garbage or trash spilled by the Contractor shall be picked up immediately by the
Contractor. Garbage receptacles shall be handled carefully by the Contractor,
Curnrnisxian Memorandum
J-ebruary.?, 20f0
RFP No.60-08/09 Resldontial Waste Coftection Services
Pago 10 off 0
shall not be bent or otherwise abused, and shall be thoroughly emptied and then
left at the proper point of collection. Metal cans can be replaced upright with
covers securely and properly in place on the cans-or can be inverted with covers
placed topside up on the ground next to the container. Plastic cans shall be
inverted with covers placed topside up on the ground next to the container. Any
type receptacle found in a rack, cart or enclosure of any kind shall be returned
upright to such rack, cart or enclosure and lids shall be placed securely and
properly on the top of said receptacles. In the event of damage by the Contractor
for garbage receptacles, the Contractor shall be responsible for the timely repair
or replacement of said receptacles.
1.8 Preparation of Yard Trash for Collection: The Contractor shall pick up all yard
trash generated from residential units which has been properly prepared and
stored for collection as follows:
Garden and Yard Trash -Regular placed adjacent to the pavement or traveled
way of the street in containers or bundles less than fifty (50) pounds each and
with no dimension over four (4) feet each, or limbs/branches not greater than four
(4) inches in diameter, shall be collected twice per week.
The contractor shall clean Swale and median areas adjacent to designated
collection routes of all accumulated palm fronds and bulky tree debris.
Non-containerized Yard Trash and Yard Trash-Bulk will be collected by the
Contractor on a scheduled basis at no additional charge. Such services shall be
provided up to four (4) limes per year on dates scheduled by the contractor
individually with each residential account. In the event of a dispute between a
Contractor and a customer as to what constitutes bulky yard trash, the situation
will be reviewed and decided by the Contract Administrator whose decision will
be final.
1.9 Residential Solid Waste Collection Equipment: The Contractor shall provide
new equipment to commence contract. New equipment is defined as trucks
having less than 2,000 miles. Equipment shall be obtained from nationally known
and recognized manufacturers of garbage collection and disposal equipment. For
residential collections, equipment shall be of the enclosed loader packer type,
and all equipment shall be kept in good repair, appearance, and in a sanitary and
clean condition at all times. The Contractor shall have available reserve
equipment which can be put into service within two (2) hours of any breakdown.
Such reserve equipment shall correspond In size and capacity to the equipment
used by the Contractor to perform the contractual duties. A list of the
Contractors equipment shall be given to the City at the time of each contract
year audit.
Equipment is to be painted uniformly with the name of the Contractor, business
telephone number, and the number of the vehicle in letters not less than five (5)
inches high on each side of the vehicle. All vehicles shall be numbered and a
record kept of the vehicle to which each number is assigned. No advertising
shall be permitted on vehicles, except of events sponsored by the City.
Commission Mottmrattduttr
Fobruary 3, 2010
RFP No.60.Ot?r09-Residential Wasfe CollecNOn Services
Pege 1 ~ of 16
1.10 Yard Trash Collection Equipment: The Contractor shall have on hand at all
times and in good working order such equipment as shall permit the Contractor
adequately and efficiently to perform its contractual duties. Equipment shall be
obtained from nationally known and recognized manufacturers of garbage
collection and disposal equipment. Collection vehicles shall be of the enclosed
loader packer type or other vehicle designed to allow for efficient collection of
yard trash. The equipment shall be kept in good repair, appearance, and in a
sanitary and clean condition at all times. All replacement and additional vehicles
shall be new equipment unless otherwise agreed to by the City. The Contractor
shall have available reserve equipment which can be put into service within two
(2) hours of any breakdown. Such reserve equipment shall correspond in size
and capacity to the equipment used by the Contractor to perform the contractual
duties. A list of the Contractor's equipment shall be given to the City at the time
of each annual audit.
SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR -YARD TRASH-BULK
REMODELING AND HOME REPAIRS TRASH. HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE AND
WHITE GOODS.
2.0 Description of Work: The contractor shall collect all yard trash bulk, remodeling
and home repairs trash, household furniture, and white goods (collectively, "Bulk
Waste") from all single-family homes, multiple dwellings, buildings of eight (8) or
fewer units under common ownership.
2.1 Freauencv of Collection: The ConVactor shall collect such Bulk Waste only on
dates scheduled by Contractor individually with each Residential Account (a
Residential Account means either a Residence (Single Family) or Multiple
Dwelling Unit). Contractor shall collect, without additional charge to the City
under this Agreement, such Bulk Waste a maximum of four (4) times per
calendar year for each Residential Account. In the event that any Residential
Account requests and Contractor accomplishes more than four (4) Bulk Waste
pick-ups during any calendar year, the charge will be $20 per cubic yard.
2.2 Holiday: The only holiday with no service to residents will be Christmas Day.
2.3 Collection Schedule: The contractor shall make available a telephone line to
allow residents to schedule Bulk Waste pick-ups. By calling the telephone line,
each account would schedule its next bulk pickup appointment with the
contractor. All appointments must be made no less than five (5) calendar days
prior to the scheduled pick-up. Pick-ups shall be affected by the conVactor in the
appointment day, and not before or later. Pick-ups will be scheduled as follows;
South Beach on Mondays, Mid Beach on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and North
Beach Thursdays and Fridays.
2.4 Bulk Waste Collection Eauipment: The contractor shall have on hand at all
times and in good working order such equipment as shall permit the Contractor
adequately and efficiently to perform its contractual duties. Equipment shall be
obtained from nationally known and recognized manufacturers of garbage
collection and disposal equipment. Collection vehicles shall be designed to allow
for efficient collection of Bulk Waste. The equipment shall be kept In good repair,
appearance and in a sanitary and clean condition at all times. All replacement
Commission Memorandum
February 3, 2010
RFP No.60.OfV09-Kesidentia! Waste Coflectlon Services
PHge 12 or 16
and additional vehicles shall be new equipment unless otherwise agreed by the
City. The Contractor shall have available reserve equipment which can be put
into service within two (2) hours of any breakdown. Such reserve equiprnenl
shall correspond in size and capacity to the equipment used by the Contractor to
perform the contractual duties. A list of the Contractor's equipment shall be given
to the City at the time of each annual audit.
SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR -OPERATION OF THE
CITY'S GREEN WASTE FACILITY
3.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
3.1 A City owned Green Waste Facility will be operated by the contractor at 2800
Meridian Avenue. The facility is an open green waste yard with controlled
access and containers placed in strategic locations to facilitate dumping process
by residents and landscapers.
3.2 Description of Work: The Contractor shall be responsible for operating the
Green Waste Facility located at 2900 Meridian Avenue, City of Miami Beach (the
"Facility").
3.3.1 Hours of Operation: The Contractor shall be required to provide all necessary
manpower and equipment to receive, control, secure, collect dumping fees, and
dispose of all Acceptable Material, as defined In Section 11.12 below, six (6)
days per week, Monday through Saturday, from the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 5:00
p.m. The Contractor will post the preceding days/hours of operation in a readily
visible place at the entrance of the Facility.
The Facility shall be closed on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Day, July 4th,
and Labor Day. The Contractor will post these closure dates all year, In the same
manner as set forth above.
Hours of operation shall not be otherwise extended or shortened without
the prior written consent of the Cily. After receipt of written consent from
the City, the Contractor will be responsible for notifying all residents via
written notification at least two (2) weeks before the revised hours of
operation commence. Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize
hours contrary to the hours governing such operations.
3.4 The facility shall be accessible to residents of the City of Miami Beach, and
Landscapers performing work within the limits of the City of Miami Beach.
3.5 At least one (1) Contractor employee shall be on site at all times to oversee the
day to day operation of the Facility. This individual shall charge Landscape
Firms and direct traffic to where loads should be dropped.
3.6 The Contractor must keep records of all inbound and outbound traffic. Specific
details will be outlined in the contract. The Contractor shall dispose of all Clean
Yard Waste and deliver to Facility.
Commission Memorandum
Febnrary 3. 2010
RFP No. fi0-OBr09-Residential Waste Collection Services
Page 13 of 18
3.7 The Contractor shall containerize all materials delivered to the Facility; shall
conduct a neat and orderly operation at all times; shall be solely responsible for
the necessary housekeeping services to properly maintain the Facility; and shall
repair and maintain Its equipment in good operational condition. No signs (other
than the entrance sign described herein) or advertising shall be placed in the
premises unless first approved, in writing, by the City Manager or his authorized
representatives. All signage shall comply with the City's established criteria, as
set forth In Ordinance No. 89-2665, as may be amended from time to time.
3.8 The Contractor shall use its best effoAs to assure that Its operation of the Facility
does not reasonably interfere with the existing character of the surrounding
residential area.
3.9 Prior to commencement of the services to be performed pursuant to this Request
for Proposals, The Contractor shall obtain any and all necessary identification
numbers, permits, licenses and other requirements necessary to operate the
Facility, and shall thereafter perform its obligations hereunder in compliance with
any and all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, rules and regulations.
IN KIND SERVICES
The Contractor will provide and service at no cost to the City, five (5) 20 cubic yard
dumpsters every first weekend of the month. Locations to be specified by the City.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHO/CE OFFi
ISS t) 7977974 (95d
F
7977v~
co. ax:
)
Qualifications of Proposer's Team
Chuits; s vxpuiencc, both cvrpuralc and munuKemeat ate long and varied, covering all
aspects of a collection company.
Caporals
Choice has been providing singleJmuhi family rosAeniial stn•ice since 2W 1 W the Cily
of Fun Lauderdale. W e have sitxc expaadtd to include the Tuwn ut Lauderdale-by-the-
Sca, ?, additional amtracls with fort I auderdale,'Ihe Village of Indtaa Creek,'fhe City
of Naples and numerous others. Tbc services that we ptavidc Coc surglc fwuily homes
include: Backdoor waste eollcrtinn, curbtside waste rnllection, awnmatul curbsiAr waste
collection, yard waste a>Ilectioa, bulk waste collection wtd curbside recycling collcctinn.
Choice has several MRF(matuial Recovery Facilities) wficro we operate a site that
processes material delivered to the site and then transfer to it to a final destinarion "1 he
majority of our material is sold for recycling and creating u benufiviul use. This is the
same aperxtivn as that of the City's ('rccen Waste fae:ility.
Choice is one of the 5 holders of Commercial 1•Ymchisns in the City of Miwui Beach and
knows the City and the rolalcxl issacs that arc associat«f wrath i~
Maaagemeet'1'eam
Choice's management team cvnsisb of u very seasoned xrtwp of individuals tvirh various
experience includutg:
Jim Sage the provider of service for the City of rtianti Beach for over 15 years. Ht has
an cxttmsivc tatdersutad'mg of all uC the reyuin:ments of the City and an cxccllent record
with the Ciry.
Nick Cascione the former uw^.tu of Ameri-Carting, vac of the license holders in Miami
Beach for msny years. Nick provfdod a level of service such that the City awarded him a
Key w the: City. He hes over 20 years of Lrsthand cxpcrirncc in the City.
Other tnemfx~rs of the mwtugem~at loam have provided Ivcvl and national residrntial
service for thousands of homes around the country. Please see the attached tcsumrs for a
detailed background vn our tttatutgxtent team. Also attashcd is an Otpanizational Chan
for ottr opemdon that will service yrntr Ciry
Page 56
84, Svae lOl
ATTACHMENT3
WASTE PRO L:~SA, I\C.
EXECUTIVE SUlt9'v1AhY
W.4STL PRO USA, INC. (Waste Fro) is a Florida corporation headgwvrtered in
Longwood, Florida nttd is maringed by the southeastern iJnited States' most experienced
team of waste Prnfe+sinnxls. 'Many ,Years ago, we bxame k:rowr, us u people company
because our employees and our c,utomers worked hand-in-hrnd io create a W'I?d-W1N
situat:ou. We rcaliazd tfu,r our c,ntomers signed our paychecks and eve would suivc u,
v,tisf•~ nun cuswmer needs and wishes.
When Jvlur Jennings start:-,c's his first waste collection. compar.~y in 197? l~~e didn't thin
about how big his compact' could become he k,rcw Duly that his ct:stomers paid for a
service and he watued ev provide the nest service he could. lle wanted w distinguish
himself tt"rom Ihr other cvmpanies. And he drdl His basines ncean to gmw and expanc.
IIe started in Orange County, Fiinida in the residential business and svon expanded into
:.ic comn,en;iul husinc-ss. In 19?6; he expanded into Seminole County and in 1961
opened a sire in St. Cloud in Usaola County. Ay 1983, he venutred is-to Volusia a,.d
roan }'.ogler Counties. In 19R6, Fred W'ovd joined the team to bead up ihc: nnw
demanding. area of cquipmem maintenance attd procweru;;nt. 13v l49?, the Jennings
companies had expanded operations lt> include municipal constilting and sales. To u,ure
udeyw:tely dcacrihe the Ivtal sen~iees being offered by the gn~up, .krhn incorporated
JGNNINGS LNVIKUN:v1t•T"f.Ai. SF.RVTCFS, TNC. in ?viat>;h of 1492 and used this
vehicle for expnrtsiuns and acgttisirions. It was a[ this .juncture that John hrnueM ?avid
Danford on board to head up marketing artd sales.
Ju}m Jennings met .John Chury, then a ltegronal Vice Pt°sidur. i>r RFT, in 1974. John
Drury later became l7esident ot"BFl ar,d subseyuently Chairman and CLO of USA 1Vaste
Sen•ices, Inc. (LISAj. As both companies tgew, a professional fiiendahip developed
hcrwccn the hvo men lcadiag to the transaction in 1996 in which JEIv:'QINGS
E2~vIItU\M1;N'1AL SERVICES, INC. becaruc the f rst tier subsidiary of tiSA and John
Jennings headed up cot7x~ratc activities for Florida and the Caribbean.
At this time a ucw addition, t3ob Hyres, ryas added to our senior management tearu. Boh
hi: ix;en involved in the solid waste business mr'loride since 1972. He is v;:rv well
kaovm and irspeued in the tndt:slry. He is the past C'.}:aimran Cvr the Florida Chapter of
the Natimtci Solid Waetes Mana,;emi:ni Assv;:iaiion. Ile ~ aso the past Chainttar, ot'the
.Advisory Roard for rho Florida Center for Solid ar,d Hara+rdous Vvastc-s Stuey, a
University of Florida research center. $ob has had personal management oversight for
over 160 City and County contracts in Florida. JE\\iNGS aad TiSA gnaw rapicJly and,
in fact, acquired Waste ~lana¢.ement, hrc. in July of ;998. Recause'~~'aste Management
dwa,fcd iJSA in sire ihr bv>rct of directors elected to change the USA name w Wastr,
`vlaragemeni.
JOHK 1ENNINCrS bcc:un,c the Rcgivnal Vice President for the combined operatics ar,d
(Ile scuiur t::am of D4VF, DA'+IP'ORD,. UOB I-IYRL•5 and F'REL't 3~'UOD headel uy t},eir
ATTACHMENT 3 (CONTD.)
respective azcas in the combined organization. The 7ermings 'l'earn are poupk why prefer
day-today wntact with both our employees and our custotncrs. Our philosupl:y is
drastically different than the corporate bureaucratic make up of the big national
companies Our adherence and dedication to customer service differed from the dictates
of an out-uf--state policy. Our preference to deal with local vendors was deemed
unacceptable. Our personal touch with our employees and their families was thought to
be old fashirnrcd-
Our entire team decided that we. needed w sever our relationship w7th Waste
Marutgement and begin tv offer our type of customer service relationships to all our
customers. We left eu mass in January 2000 and agnxd to stay out of waste collection in
North and Central Florida for one year. We decided m provide consulting; demolition;
land clearing, and site work in Florida artd begou waste collection in Georgia and South
Carolina. As we grew, more key personnel joined the team including 1)on Phillips, CFO,
who heads Waste Pro's financing and banking area, Cort Sabina Vice President and
Corporate Controller leadine accounting and financial reputing, Jim Curelli, Regioned
Vice President for northeast Florida, Tim I>olan Regional Vice President for central
Florida, Keith Banasiak Regional Vice President for southwest Florida, Russea Mackie
Regional Vicr President for southeast Florida artd Ralph Mills, Regional Vice President
for northwest Florida and southwest Georgia.
Today we arc proud to offer services from thirty-four (34) locations in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia and South Carolina. Waste Pro holds eighty-four (84) exclusive City and County
Franchises, thirty-four (34) non-exclusive City and Cowt[y franchises and five (S) major
military and federal government contracts. W'astc Pro is currently cunhaMed to pruvidc
solid waste and recycling services to over 800,11(10 residences turd veer 37.,(1(10
businesses,
The trucks that are used by Waste. Pen arc constntcted to be safe, productive and pruvidc
a comfortable work base fur our employees. The trucks are kept clean and have a striking
environmentally themed color scheme with customized signage to represent luc:al dtcmcs
in rack district area. The trucks aze equipped with closed circuit televisirnt and audio fur
safety purposes. The hydraulic lines are reinforced with an exterior armrn• tv prevent
leakage and hydraulic spills. Waste Pro is awell-funded private cunpsuty with the
resotuces and commitment to provide Cities. Counties and private commercial
businesses. With the forest service available. We look forwtud to assisting in the WlN-
WN relationship that can begin TODAY!
EXHIBIT 1
BEFdRE T,HE Hl:ARINfi F~tAMiNER FOR THE HROWARO COUNTY
ENVIpiJNMENTAL PROTECTION OHPARTMENT
IN AID POR BROyYARa COUNTY, FLORIDA
BROWARD COUNTY EPNIRONMEN'i'AL Nolieee of Vloletlon: 08-0033
PROTECTION) DEPAR71HFSfT, Og.Opyt
Pet}tlorter, 0&0038
07-0014
~' 07-00'i5
07-0027
SUN RECYCLING, LLC, 07-OD28
• Respondent.
Elpl L Q DER
TWIS tNATTEk cattle before the undersigned hearing exraminer for the Bmwetd
County Envlronmarrtsl Protection Department ('EPD") at a hearing held on July 17,
2007 end conBnuad on /lugust 2t3, •2007 kt Fort l~udetdale, Florida Pursuaht to the
Joint Stipulation enlonad into by the partlss on or about July 1y, 2007, Respondent,
Sun Recycling, LLC, edrnits to the vioiatione contained ih the Notices of Violation eat
forth above. Respondent: sought an administratlve hearing solely as tt n3lated bo the
peneltles rrat'foRh in SgoMon 27,22 of the Brvward County Coda. The sole lasuo to ba
determined fa whether the penalties befog sought by EPp erg reasonable.
I:PD is seeking cdvil penalties in 0te aggregate emouM df $322,877.00, an
adJuatmant factor of 40% whlcli equates to 5128,107.b0. and adminlstrntive coats of
$11,288.00 for a tote! amount of 5483;382.00. EPD also requests cartoln specified
corrective action de~lted at the end ai this Fldat Ober.
Daphne E, Jones, Eeq. of the Hroward County Attomay's Office reprgaented the
EPD and praoented the testimony of dtenn Matmelrom, Joseph W. Luria, OEP Waste
Program Administretor and Barbar8 Chvw, Natural Resauroe Specialist fl. Oan{el E
Taylor, Esq. of Tripp 3701! and Alfred J. Mgtefatto, Esq, of Onsehberg Traurig
represented the Reapond~ent and presented Iha testimony of Robert B. Oertlnor, PE,
BCEE, Senior Vice Pre9ldent wtth SCS Engineers, end Christopher Morris leaf, Ph.D.,
Aasoclato t)irector of.lhe (:entorfor 6ianedical and Toxicological Research and Waste
Management at Florida State University end President and. Director of Toxicology for
Hazardous 3ut>stancas anti Waste Mana~emant Research, Inc.
F1ND1NQ8 pF F1~CT
1. Respondent was ohergad Wlih seven oeparate tJoiicea d Vlolatlon for multiple
vlolatlona which occul'red between July 2fi, 2008 end February 7, 2007. (Sag
Appendix A which is attached hereto end Indotpdrated herein by reference)
Z. On or ebbut July i7, 2(107 (doarment afgned but not dated), the pa.`ttea entered into
e Jalnt Stlpulatkrn whereby Respondent admitted to all of the vlolatlona contained
In the Notlcea of Vlolatlon Which are the subject of this dispute, The parties agreed
that fteapondant never intentionally violated the law. Respondent agreed that thore
was o lack of Institutional controls within the company that wuld have prevented
the violetlona end that the violations oouid have been reasonably antlcipated ar
foreseen. Respondent. sought the edminlstretlve hearing for the sole purpose of
determining the amount of penalties that should be assessed against Respondent
for the vlotationa.
3. f3lenn tVlafmsiram, EPt), was queilfiad as an expert in solid waste. Mr. Malmatrom
testified that he persotualfy conducted inapediona on the sites which ere the aubJ9ct
of this hearing, Mr, M,rlmaVom testified that his visual inspection of each of the
sttea revealed ,that the material deposited on the property to be usod as till
appeared to bo aolfd waste. Mr. Malmstrom teatlf)ed that he saw fairly large places
of woad; eapheft rooflrsg, foam lnsulallon, metal and plastle throughout fha vedoua
atlas, Mr. Melmalrom testified that the malaria) deposited on these 91tes did not
appear tc have tlean Isrocesaed auNiclenlry to be considered as recovered acrean
malarial ("RSM") and further stated that the materials did not vleually appeal to be
suitable for distribution as fill matetlal. Mt. Molmetrom testtfled that he took a
composite 8ampla of Ifie tinar matadal tar laboratory analysts ae well ae coareer
samples, which were produced at the h9ering. Mr. Malmatrom leattfled that there
were aubatandai amouMls of eoifd waste deposited on all of the subject properties
as•evidenced by the ptiolvgrapha which ha took and aubmlttad Into evidence.
4. Mr. Melmstrom tesUlled that hse mat wRh Reapondant's repreaentatlvoa IA
November 2008 whoreln ha woe advised that Respondent had been experiencing
acme mechanical prot~lems with its processing equipment qa well sa. management
problems at the Sun Z 8 3 facllltles. Mr. Mafmatrom lea0iled that Reapondent'a
repreaerrtauvas edcntwNedged that soma ovaragea were baing mixed with
matertala in the final product and distribution.
6. Mr. Maknahom testified thgt, according to the Recovered tiCr4en Materiel BaseUne
SempNng Report dated September 9, 2402, ft was determined thatflve eemivotetUe
organic compounds ("SVOCa'~ warn detected fn R5M aemploa at "total
oonr~niratlona exeaerting the residential exposure loll Geanup target levels
("SCTLs'~. Additlonell!/, 'Iwo SVOCe ware detected in RSM samples et tote{
ccncenlratlona exoeed~ing the ieachabll(ty based on groundwater cdteria SCTLs."
As a result, it was .rncommanded that Reepondont begin excluding asphalt, CCA
wood, and roofing shingles from RSM through vleuai screening end best
management ptadtara, Accorclingy, in the Recovered Screen Material
t3uppiomental BaseNnc~ Sampling Report dated Match 20, 20t)3, It was concluded
that the nsduollon ol` the SVOCs• vonoenttatlone to levels below regulatory
etenderdb appeared h> be the result of the removal of these products from the
feedstock of the RSIJI generation.. tl was suggested that these predlese be
continued. Mr. Malmstmm testltldd that those studies put the Respondent on
notlce that there ware poor Intamel controls which were atfecling the disposal and
and use of RSM materials.
e. Mr. Maimetrom teatfftert that during several Inspection visits at Bun 2, he witnessed
Ctty of pearfleld ~Beada trucks dump oontefneTa of solid waste that did not appear to
be construction and demoiltlon debris ("Cfld"). Mr. Melmatrom teetlfied Nat the
debris contained bulky, curbatde waste material such es talevtalona, computer
monftore and Nmtture. Mr. Mafmatrom testtfled thot this is in dlroct violation of
ReapondenYa solid waste Itoenaa which ellovrs the facility to receive only C80
waste.
7. Mr. Maihtetrom teallllett tttel the quahtity, quaiky and size of the solid waste amount
to a moden3te paterrtlui for harm to the erntronment. Fte further {eaNlied that the
extent of devletbn war, maJor due to the fact that: Respondent was Familiar whh the
nrlaa of solid waste end violated them; Respondent violated the requirements of !ts
Solid Waste Management l;Icenae; the same type of solid waste was being widely
dlebtbuted to vstfous idles throughout Brvwerd and Palm Beach County, including
a
wetland prOpeRy; and (teapondartt waa aware of the poor Inattwtional controls at Ira
tadltliea.
8. Joseph Lurlx, DEP, was qualified as an expert In solid weals management
environmental laws and solid waste management facllitlea. Mr, Lurfx teatifed that
he had visited many of the sltoD which' ero the subJact of thl9 oauae wtrere rte
personalty wtlnessed :aubetardial quantities of solid waste dlatrkbutad throughout
those properties. !n F~articular, Mr. Lurtx testifed that he saw large pieces of
atyFofoem, Halls, roofk'ig'malerials and wood on various properties throughout the
county sumo of whivh exisnded across whole properties and Borne which were
ebao to private wells, septic tanks end other groundwater.
9. Mc Lurlx teaUlted that he met with Respondent's manager, John Fox, who admitted
that there was a problem with iha star screen and ihat mnledels were going to
reatdenllal neighDortwods that should have been rejected. Mr. Lurix tosttNed that
Mr. Fox showed him a broken ataeen through which three fo four Inch materiel
couid,paea.
iO,On cross-examtnetbn, Mr. Lutlx stetod Ihet Respondent has responded to the
concerns of the county and had boon working to remove the acrid waste from.al
least one of the vuDJect properties.
11.Barbere Chvw, BPD, was qualNfed as en expert fn Wetlands and Wetlands
Delerminetlon. Ma. Chow tesdfled that oho had cornpleted a field InapecUon aF the
four wetland sites referred to as the Rivera, Fisher, Taylor and Hibbert properties.
Ms. Chow testified that Respondent had dumped aubatantlel amounts of solid
waste fill on the subject propertltrs. Ms. Chow testified That the C80 debris
corrtalned shingles and other prohRsit~sd materials. Ms. Chew testified that tl!e
potential for harm to tix3 wetlands !s moderate while the extent of deviation Is ma}or.
Ma. Chew toatlfled that; Respondent has taken rasponalb8lty for placing solid waste
on the subJeat wetlands end has bepuh work to remove the flit ae raqulred by
i=pD.
12. Mr. Robert t3ardner was qualified as an expaR in Environmental Enptnearing, Mr.
GaMnet teetffled that rte became involved In this case In mld~luly 2007, when he
began reviewing the testing dale tnxn ~taspondent's weekly and quarterly
eamplin9e. Mr: Gsrdriar testified that the testing data shows ho. changQ from
baseline samples and as such, opined that the RSM generated by Respondent fa
eultabla for piaoemenk et industrial and residential settings, Mr. Gerclner toatlfled
that, beaod upon prevailing studies to the Held ea wall as his own training and
experience, the affects of R9M on the environment poso no known dak. Mr.
Oarctne* further teauflad that that soroen size does not in any way change the
nature or chareotartst6~ of the wasto and ee such, opined that the known risks are
unafieofed by the size or age of the solid wae6a. Mr. Oardnar tastlftad that the solid
waste malarial genauated by the Respondent end dlapgraed to the vorlous
properties throughout the county pose minimal harm to the environment. Mr.
t3erdner testified that RSM cannot be dapoaited tnto water ar wetlands but opined
that this is precautbndry ony, stating that the risk of environmental Impact la
minimal.
13.On cross examination, Mr. Gardner admtttad that he had no personal knowledge of
how the sampling occurred for the testng of the sites. EPD Contended that the solid
6
...
waste Ia trot mere R~~M, but consists of outer Class Ifl waste that ahouk! have been
rejected by~ Respondent Howavef, Mr. Gardner testified that the sampling data
does not suggest contam{Hatton by produda ether than C8D and he teaHtlod that
there would be no algnffk:ant impact to the environment and minimal harm even
with each cantamfnatlon.
14.Christopher Teaf, Pir.D., was qualified es en expert in toxfoology, health risk
assessment and enviironmentel ohemtatry. Dr, Teaf teatlHed titer he'revlewed ell d.
the data end R5M sampling analysis provided by Respondent, In addition to
meeting with ReapondonYs staff and visiting lho factlitiea. Dr, Tea! ttastlged that,
based upon hta review of the •sampling data, the RSM does not pose a health
hazard. Or. Taaf likened Respondent's case to that Involved in the Miramar study
wherein the authors concluded that the RS,M did Hat pose & tiignfticent threat to
publlc~ health or to the environment. Dr. Teat' tea8ffed that the screen size and
particle size do' not present a health or envlronmantal hazard. Or. Taaf explained
thal• size reatrlctlona are based upon aesthetlca only and have nothing to do with
health conceme. Dr. Taaf testified that ana must Zook at the chemical
wnceniratlona of 1ha waste and. determine the degree d Kann, Dr. Teal teattbed
that, based upon hla review of the we9kfy and quarterly sampling results, hte
training end.axperiericn and knowledge of sites such as those which ere the subject
of this dispute, the degree of harm Ia minimal.
7 5. Judicial (adminletrativel notice was taken of the follawtng:
a. 3ettternent Agreement tar NOV04-0017; NOVU4-0024 and NOVp4-0091
wherein It was alleged that Respondent felled to strictly control dull
emissions frarn the meteHel recovery faculty at 2281 NW 18'" Street 1n
?ompeno l3eaci~, In vlolatton of spaoiflc condition # 16 of the Soild Waste
Management Lluarrae RR98-18941-D2.,
b. Settlement Agreement for NOV02-0083. wherein it wee alleged that
Respondent rcc~ivad matedai net authorized by Solid Waste Management
ucanae RR98-18941.
c. 8ettiement Agreement for NOV04~0048 and NOVOQ-0080 wherein It was
alleged that Respondent received and/or.depoelted unacoopteble debNa on
the ground and In the bomiw pH In Wolatlori of epeciflc conditlori # 1 of the
Sofld Waste Meinagenrent License sW-13POOtY10-02.
d. Settlement Agreement for NOV01.30768; NOVOt-307ti9; NOV01-30780;
NOV01~0789; NOV09-30770; NOV01-30771; NOV01-90T12; NOV01-
.30773 and NOV01-0003 wharoln ft was elleged.thet Respondent:
t. Recelve~d and deposited solid waste on land service and Respondent
aliegedhr rccatvad end deposited non-clean debrta in vloletlon of
condition # 1 of 8otld Waste Management Llavnav RR98=15408.
II. Disposed of solid waste irom a non~tlcenaed d4~posel facility In
vtoletloni of condklon # 12 of Soud Waste Management License
F~R98-18941.
iii. Operated w[thout en operator or spotter fralned In accordarYCV with
F.A.C, rules...and felled to include u1 its .tune 2001 rapvris to DPEP a
recant of all types of material and ail disposal sRea shown In the dally
records in vlolatbn of condition # 23 of 5olld Waste Management
License F:R97-18101,
iv. Shipped recovered sorsened material {RSM) from taclpty # 1 to an
unapproved flit site In vlolalbn of apealfic condition # 10 of Solid
Waste Mranagement Llcenso RR97-19101.
v. Operated without an oparatar or spotter trained In accordance with
F.A.C. rulas...and felted to Includo In !ta June 2001 reports to DAEP a
record of ail types of materiel snd•all digpoeal altos shown in tho deify
records °In' violation GZ condition # 23 of SoNd Waste Management
License IRR98-18841.
vI. Shipped recovered screened mstorial (R5M) from faGllty # 1 to
unapproved flit sftee In violation of speclftc condition # 10 of Solid
Waste Nlanagemttnt License RR87-19101.
e. Settlement Agreement for NOV05.0004 wherein It was albged that
Responderd feflad to comply with 5peoiflc Condition Nos. 9 end 10 of the
Solid Waste Mlanagement ucenae RR98~18841-02 by recovering pressure
treated and painted wood debris commingied with clean wood and sanding
ail of the meU~rla1 to another fadllly for processing and by receiving and
processing Cleisa III adid weals.
f. Final Order far NOY02-0011 wherein it is alleged that Respondent tolled to
atrlcty control the dust el aN Hmea by allowing tUgltive particulate matter to
(save the material recovery facility In violation of 9peclflc Condition #113 of
Sclld Waste N:anagemont Ltcenae RR98-18941.
a
,_~
coNCl_uarot+rs of u~w
it is unconttovertad that the Respondent Committed the vlofetlona as contained
hi the Mottoes of Violrttlon whloh are the subject matter of this cause. In determining
the appropriate penalties to Impose, section 27-22 of the Browerd County Code
enumerates certain criteria that shall be considered during the deiermination of a
penalty, The weight of the evidence suggests that Cho potential for harm Is minor.
Howavor, the substantlai omount of solid waste distributed to the vast number of sites'
Throughout the county, Including wetland areas, suggests a deliberate deviation tram
the Broward County Caie requirements and regulations ea welt ae a deliberate
vlolatlon of Respondent's Solid Webte Management Llcensa. 1?ro evldonoe reflects a
history of noncompliance by Respondent and suggests en economic benefit for such
noncompliance insofar au prior Impoettlon of penalties and costs has not deterred
Respondent from engaging In further violations of eimlfar character. 'The evidence le
cloar that Respondent knew or should havo ltrtown that It Was not complying whh
County code, particularly since the requirements were specifically outNned In
Respondent's Solid Wae'de• Managemeht Ut:enees end the Jolnl sUpulstlon whereby
Respondent agrees that there was a lack of k-slltutlonal controls and that the viola8on
could have been• reasonal~ty antlcipefed or foreseen.
sy way of mlUgatlon, the evidence naflects that Respondent hoe at all Umes
relevant hereto oooparaterd with EPD, has already taken action Io remedlate some of
the subJect silos and hrrs Indk:ated a wiilingneae to remedlate elf of ffite altos In
accordance with County codo and procedures.
WHEREFORE, It la hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
t0
~ '.J
i) In NOV08-0093, Respondent shall pay a Clvll penalty of 513,899.00.
z) !n NOV08-Ob:34, Respondent shall pay a Civil penalty of $8,899.00.
3) In NOV00-0039. Respondent shall pay a civil pdnetlty of $8,260.00.
a) In NOV07-001b, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $80,400.00.
5) In NOV07-0015, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of x60,000.00.
s) In NOV07-0021, Respondent ehaA pay a civil penalty of $8,899,00.
~j In NOV07-0CrLB, Respondent shall pay.a civil penalty of $8,899.00.
An adJuetmertt factor of 4096 (x8§,638.00) shall be imposed based upon
ReapnndonYa history of nancompllance and to ensure immediate and continued
compflano9, Admtnistrratlv~a coats em also Imposed lri the amount of 511,288,00. ?hie
amounts m a tatai sum due and owing of $254,852,00. Of this total amount,
5234,152.00 shall be paid to the Brewald County Envlronmerttal Protection
Department ('tcPD'~ and 520,500.00 ahaA be paid to Florida bepartment of
Environments! Protection, S.E. Florida District -Went Pelm Beach ("FDEP"). In
addltltrn, the toAowinp cortecttve action shell be Impaled In this case:
W-thtn fifteen (16) days Prom the date of the Final Order, Rerapondont shall
provide to EPD for approval a Remedial Action Plan ('RAP'S which: 1) IdenUffea the
acllona to be taken by the Respcndani to ensure compllenco of tte RSM
operationslprodudlon and record-keeping at aA taclAtkee and 2) addresses lho
romedletlon of the thlrtytive (36) propeNes Impaled vr,th solid waste. Tho RAP shall
contain(rnoludb, but not bd limited to the followfnp:
• • Identify ihoaa locstions that have already reeelved romedial action and provide
detalle on the action(s) that have taken pleoe.
tt
.. ._.
i) Amount of material removed. Wae It complete removal or parttal7
x) Identify aontractor, hauler, and disposal IooaUvn(s).
3) Amount and tyFie of replacement malarial provided, If any. '
a) Identify source, contractor, hauler, etc.
• .Identify the locatlais where edlon Is still requtr®d.
i) Identify propoe~sd ec0on(b) to take plane,
z) Provide a schedulelUmetable for action completlort for each WcaUcn.
;) fdenilfy contret,tor, hauler, and disposal rotation{e), etc.
• Identlry the Iocatiana where removal cannot be conducted.
i) DMaII dreiimatances prevenOng remedial action.
• Provide a Cat Identifying any additional locations uncovered by Sun Recycling
requiring remedial action.
• Detail prooese oantrole lmpiemanlad by bun ReoycAng, t1C at Una feciifttes
(Sun Recycling f!2 and Sun Recyding #3) related to RSM production.
distribution, teattrug, and reporting tc provide assurances that future sErnllar
vlotstlona w11i not urxur.
Respondent shall imrnediabsiy begin to remove ail soNd waste from Iha thltty-
flve (35) properties idshtlfled In the Notices of Violation upon approval of the RAP
by EPD. Remedtetlon of the thirty-true (35) ImpaGed propert[es shall commenoe
Wkh the four (4) wetland circa located in Southwest Ranches (NOV06-0033.
NOVOe-aa3a, NOV07-0021, and NOV07.0028) and the lwo (2) slice located in
West Palm Beach whero the material was placed In the water table and on a efts
that has a pdvste welt (NOV07-0015, Counts 1 & 2 ahd Counts 21 & 22). Within ten
12
,~, .~.
(70) days from •the dates of Iemediatlon of each ells, Respandant ahap provide to
EPt) waste disposal recelptafmantfeata for the remavel or the solid waste. The
dtaposat recelpteslmani4aeta, at a minimum, must idsntiy the aRa romadlatad,
quantity of ao11d waste removed, the disposal tocatton end the haulers name and
addrose.
The undersigned Wtiaring Exam'ner eheA retain Jurisdlctbn over this matter and
grants to EPD the right to petklon for sdd{tbnal penallloa should any of the solid
vyaate femeln on any Of the thirty-five {35) knpeoled alter,
paNE AND OROEFiED on tMa 31st August, 2007.
^~,
1
.. _ % ~,
~ ~ :.:
~ EE , E3Q. ,.
HFARiNt3 f=XA INEt}-~`
Copley Furnished to:
Daphne E. Jones, Eaq., Assistant County Attamay
ohn Stagnarl~EPO E~~rcemen~Admlrriatrator
RECEIV~~
S[P - s ~
EPD-~yFORCEMEN'f
BROWA.i2.D COUNTY GARBAGE DEAL I5 QUESTIONED 1.ANTANA FIRIvI'S AFFILLgTE... Page 1 of 3
6ROIiNARD COUNTY GARBAGE DEAL IS QUESTIONED LANTANA
FIRM'S AFFILIATE FINED FOR DUMPING
(Palm Beach Edition)
South Florida Sun -Sentinel -Fort Lauderdale. Fla
Author. Smolt Wyman
bate: Oct 2, 2007
Start Page: B.6
5octton: Laval
raxt wnM Cou nt 843
Document Text
9rowertt County has fined a company more than $250,000 for illegal dumping In a case that was under way when
offldals awarded Its stator Orm a $1.3-mlUion contract to pick up garbage at government hu8dings, documents obtained
yY the Souttf F uride Sun-Sentinel show.
The fins against Sun Reryding of Lantene Is one of the largest that Iho county Department of F,wimnmenlal Protection
has levied and Involves dumping at more than 30 sites, including eaneUlve wetlands. Braward County wmmlaslanens
say they wero not told of the casu when they hired Sun RecyGing's afil:ate, 3cuiham Waste Systems. in Apol.
"it c'early points to how disappointed I am with this adminlstratlon," Broward Mayor Jusephus Eggelletlon Bald. "We are
seeing too much infonnallan hold hank by slot`, alUwt things that embarrass the ccmmission. That hsa to stop.'
The hearing officer who Imposed the fine on Aug. 31 termed Sun Recycling'a conduu as a 'dcllberate viofellon" of
munty solid waste reputaUans and charged that it had a "history of noncompl(ance.' Behrreen Jury 2006 and February,
onvironnentaf regulators documented illegal dumping on property from 9outhwesl Ranches to West Palm Beech.
Ccunty attorneys aro now boking at whetis:r Southern Waste should have revealed the charges when It bid on the
garbage contract, and commisslaners are demanding answers for why g,ey worn in the dark.
Sun Rooycling argues that mactUnery at Its rurycling plants used to sort out large debris broke sod rausert the problem.
Acrnrdln0 to the company, oversize debds was then dumped at the selected locations. Contracfors oken use smell
duixis mstadal as fla to level IoL or yards In their projects. but to ba lapel IL must be fine, such as dirt from other
mristrucUai sites.
A spokesman for the flrtns, Phipp Medlw, sold Sun Recycling will spend alnlosl $1 milibn to clean up the sites, but he
Bald the company also is considedng an epees of the fines. Medico said expert toxicologlsfs concluded the malelal
[hat was spread poses no threat to lho environment.
'The company, Sun Racydhg, has and pontinuas to actively clean up these sites," Medico said. 'TMs was a
mal(unCUon of equipment that was overly stressed because o(lhe massive cleanups moo did across ti,e community after
Hunicrine Wilma"
In ~estlmony before the headng officer, environmental regulaivra said they saw large pieces of wood, asphalt roofing,
foam Insulation, metal aril plastic In the fill. They also Bald they sew garbage other than constNCUon debris being
delivered to one of Sun Recyding's fac111Uas, Including televisions, computer monita.~s antl k,mihve.
Acrording to the case file, Sun Recycling has been Utod sik other limas between 2001 and 2005 for environmental
violations. That led the headng oficer to knpoae the $254,652 lino, saying the company had haen undeterted from
vI018tirtg pie law,
Throe montlrs after environmental regulators Issued the last murxf of dtattona Mf the rasa after Inspecting one or Sun
Racycling's sorting centers, the commiselon took up the garbage contract.
the companies sharp executives, Charles Guamano and Anthony Lomangino, a,xf share neadquarters on Hillbrath
Ddve In l.anfane. Medico said Sun Recycling Is the recyGing arm of the utwration end Southern Warta is the cdledlon
and. Southern Waste was the lowest of six Wdders for the contract to pick up garbage at wunry perks, Ubredes, the
Government Center, Fort Laudordole-Hollywood Inlernatlanal Airport, Pod Cvsrglades and othergovemmenl facilities.
http://pgash.pgarctfiver.oom/sun sentineUaccess/13498224GI.html?dicta=l a49R2~ar51 • t ;a4R~~4 I pit o~~nnR
BROWARD COUNTY GARBAGE- DEAL !S QlJI:STIONED LANTANA FIRM'S t1I'FILIATE... ?age 2 of 3
The contract prompted Intense debate among cemmlealoners, but not because of Sun Recycling's probiana. Southern
Waste has filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overhrm key underpinnings of the compact between Bmward and most
of Its cNles that requires garbage to go to txro incineretora.
One of Lhe arguments that t1o commisalon matle In gW(ng Southern Waste the contract despite bte lawsuit was that
Sun RecyGing's reuse of rnnstnro8on dobda was worth merit and extends the Itfe of lantlfl6s. In fte eru1, Commiasloner
Rene Llebertnan cast the sole vote against hldng Southern Waste, -
Other commissioners Bald they whhad they had known about Sun Recyding's violatlona because It would have put a
dYferent Ilph[ un the firma' performance in the gartoage business.
Deputy County Administrator 8edha Wenry sold nn one on sta$ pieced together the connection because the vlolatlons
were being handled by the Department of Environmental Protedlon and the garbage ccntratt by the Public Works
Dopartrnenl.
INFORMATIONAL 90X:
WHERE STA T E SgYS ILLEC+AL DUMPING OCCURRED IN PALM BEACH COUNTY
The Department of Envlronmenta! Protecilon alleged that Sun RerycAng Illegally dumped material a135 sNas across
South Flodda. Some were lots with no address, Were Is a 11st of soma Palm Beach County xapeNas Involved.
14847 8gth St. N., Loxahatdnaa
14918 temple Blvd..
Loxahataheo
NorBteast comer of 747t Slreel North and 140th Avenue Nar1h, West palm Beach
14538 95th Lane N., West Palm Beach
14620 96th Lane N., Yves! Palm Beach
12111 58th Sl. N., Royal Patm Beach
12118 58th 5l. N., Royal Palrn Beach
13771 Okeechobee Blvd.. Loxahab:hee
16975 W. Hwlana Odva, I.oxahatthoe
Broward County propedies :Isted include seven in Southwest Ranches, two In Miramar, two In Pembroke Pk lea, two in
Davie, ono In Fort Laudeniale and and In Oakland Perk
RoproducW wnh permleslon o! Ihu wpyriphi owns. Further teproducdon cr dield6utlon ti prohlhimd witlnul perm1051oa
Abstract (Document Summary)
Tire hearing officer who Imposed Iha fine an Aug. 31 tonned Sun Reryding's conduct as a'dellberate violation" of
county solid waste reguledons and charged that It had a "h(story of noncompliance:' 13atween July 2006 and February,
env(ronmenlal regWators dncumanied Iliegal dumping an property from Southwest Ranches to Wear Patm Beach.
Repreduwtl whh permlrr.Mn nl the copyright Owll~r. Further repmdr¢:rion or dlsMhuaon la prahlhiled witFroul perrrinfan.
httpa/pgasb.pyarchiver.corn/suti_sentiuci/access113~t9822461.html?dids=] 34982246 ] :134982?4... 12/19/2008