Council Considers Trash Contract Tonight.

The City Council is scheduled to vote on the five-year solid waste contract during tonight's regular meeting in City Hall beginning at 7:30. The current hauler, American Disposal Services, has been recommended to be awarded the contract after submitting a bid that is approximately one dollar a month less for a family residential rate than the other three bidders. Commercial rates were also considered favorable. Some estimate the savings to total rate payers to be as much as $300,000 over the five year term of the contract. American's bid is lower than current rates in most instances. The current family rate of $5.80 (plus $1.27 in City charges) would be reduced to $5.50 and stay at that level for three years, increasing to $5.83 in the fifth year.

Fourth Ward Council member Trisha Burgi-Brewer has argued that there were some inconsistencies in the bidding process and is opposing the contract. A letter written to other Council members is included in today's Mornin' Mail. Also included is a memo from Engineering Department Head Joe Butler with his recommendations and explanations for some of Burgi-Brewers questions.

Burgi-Brewer Letter:

There are several issues in regard to the above referenced contract which have not been discussed in depth by the council and which I believe each of you needs to be apprised of prior to making an informed decision. Specifically have any of you questioned why one bid is approximately $300,000 less than the other three bids? I have learned that had the other three bidders bid outside the original RFP (Request For Proposal) specifications then their bids would also be similar or very close to our lowest bid.

The RFP on page 10 states that "All solid waste and yard waste collected must be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutes, laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Any disposal site or composting site or facility must be identified by the contractor, licensed and approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and accepted by the City of Carthage." There are several major concerns to me on this section of the RFP. Specifically I am concerned that the American Disposal's bid circumvents the RFP by not hauling their waste as specified by the proposal. As referenced ". . .any disposal site . . must be . . .licensed and approved by the Missouri DNR and accepted by the City of Carthage." The DNR code states that all yard waste must be separated from the main trash stream. If a contractor adheres to the RFP then he must bid the proposal with a minimum of two trips through town each week, one to pick up yard waste and one trip to pick up regular trash.

In discussing the matter with the other three bidders 4-State indicated that if they could mix yard waste and regular trash and circumvent the bid requirements he would contract and dispose of his trash out of state and could meet or beat the American Disposal Bid. Dan Janssen with USA Waste indicated that although he was planning to haul to Kansas he had bid the contract based on separation of yard waste and regular trash because of the bid requirements and in addition to adhere to Missouri DNR regulations. Dan further indicated he would compost the yard waste at their Joplin facility. Terry Stone with BFI stated that he had bid the job based on the city bid specs and Missouri DNR regulations and had not been notified of any changes to the bid specifications either verbally or in writing.

As a consequence I believe the bidders are not all playing on a level playing field and we are comparing "one apple to three oranges". Our RFP states that ". . .oral explanation or instruction given before the award of the contract will not be binding. Any information given to prospective bidder concerning a RFP will be furnished to all prospective bidders as an addendum to the invitation if such information is necessary to bidders in submitting proposals on the invitation or if the lack of such information would be prejudicial to uniformed bidders. . ." I called the other three contractors each of whom informed me that they bid the proposal based on the written specs and were not notified verbally or in writing that they could bypass the RFP rules when submitting their bid.

By allowing American Disposal to circumvent the RFP perimeters and not properly notifying the other bidders of this decision the City of Carthage has created this bidding disparity and created a prejudicial situation for the uninformed bidders with potential legal ramifications. It is my opinion that we have several choices to remedy this inequity which include the disqualifying the American Disposal bid and accepting the next lowest bidder.

There are additional considerations which need addressed besides the above concern. These considerations include compliance with DNR regulations or the circumventing of these regulations because of the economic advantage of out of state dumping. Can or will DNR fine or sue municipalities in the future for knowingly not complying with Missouri state DNR regulations? Will DNR commit in writing that by not disposing of yard waste as prescribed will not at a later date result in legal action? Can DNR fine or sue a municipality for not complying with the 40% reduction in waste stream goal by 1999? As you can see all of these considerations need pondered and resolved prior to reaching a conclusion on how to proceed with the bidding process.

My final area of concern is the economic aspect of the bid. The RFP on page 3 states that ". . .the contract shall be awarded to that responsible bidder whose proposal, conforming to the RFP will be most advantageous (lowest price and best value) to the city and other factors considered. . ." I believe economic consideration of this bidding process must also be analyzed. On an economic basis for every $1.00 invested it is returned seven times. Thus a 2 million dollar contract if invested locally in the general community makes an ultimate 14 million dollar economic impact on the community versus a 2 million dollar contract that goes to an out of town business making a ZERO economic impact on the community.

If all playing fields are equal and the bids are equal or very close I personally believe the bid should go to 4-State Sanitation because of the greater economic good to the immediate area. Please review all of the above information before making your final decision as I believe that there are serious aspects that need your consideration prior to voting on this very important contract next Tuesday night.

Sincerely, Trisha Burgi-Brewer

Butler's Memo

to Mayor Johnson and City Administrator Tom Short included in the City Council member's packets for tonight's meeting from Joe Butler, Engineering Department Head.

"In reference to the current discussions regarding the solid waste collection for the City of Carthage and the wording in the Request for Proposal requiring solid waste facilities to be approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, there are several things I would like to point out:

1) Exact language of the FRP is as follows: (Page 10, B-1) ..."Any disposal site, or composting site, or composting site or facility, must be identified by the Contractor, licensed and approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and accepted by the City of Carthage."

As stated previously, this was intended to insure that Missouri solid waste or composting facilities would meet with MoDNR approval, regulations, etc. In other words, any solid waste, yard waste, or recyclable materials could not be taken to a strip pit, private property, unlicensed sites, etc. Carthage solid waste, including yard waste has been going to a State of Kansas approved facility for several years.

This is not against the law in the State of Missouri. I had a telephone conversation this morning with Jim Gross, Environmental Specialist with the MoDNR, Chief of Solid Waste, Southwest Region, and he stated that it is not illegal to transport solid waste, including yard waste, to another state for disposal, and I believe this is clearly pointed out in the attached letter. ( In the letter, Scott Waltrip, Special Projects Unit of DNR stated: "there is no Missouri law or regulation prohibiting the transport of solid waste or recovered material across state lines.")

2) Questions raised by Mrs. Brewer were not brought up for discussion until after the bids had been opened, made public, and accepted by the City. Only one individual, Terry Stone of BFI, has asked me about this particular aspect of the RFP, and that was after the bids were submitted and opened. Neither Mrs. Brewer or any other Council member, or any representative from any solid waste contractor has telephoned or visited the Engineering Department to inquire as to ay particular language of the RFP. No one, I repeat, no one, especially the bidders, made any inquires at any time during the RFP process. It was at the time of the proposal bid openings, a known fact that this is not illegal and that this is currently being practiced by USA and American Disposal.

3) Other language in the RFP is as follows:

Page 3, A-1 AWARD. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or alternate proposals, and to waive any minor informality or irregularity in proposal received. . . The Contract shall be awarded to that responsible bidder whose proposal, conforming to the Request for Proposal, will be most advantageous (lowest price and best value) to the City.

Page 4, A-3. EXPLANATION TO BIDDERS. Any explanation desired by a bidder regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP, maps, drawings, specifications, etc. must be requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for a reply to reach bidders before the submission of their bids. . . Bidders are cautioned to carefully examine the conditions outlined herein as they affect the collection, removal, and disposal of all residential and commercial solid waste in the City of Carthage and are encouraged to make all necessary investigations to acquaint themselves with the quantity and character of solid waste covered by the RFP. The City does not attempt to advise any bidder as to any such conditions. Bidders are, however, encouraged to attend the scheduled proposal workshop on June 16, 1998, at 10 AM, to clarify any questions related to the proposal and its completion.

(The RFPs were available on June 10, and were to be submitted by July 13.) (33 days)

. . .The City of Carthage reserves the right to select that bidder which it determines to be most appropriate and negotiate an agreement with that bidder, to reject any and all proposals, and to waive any irregularities in the request for proposal process.

Page 11, B-5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. All operations of the Contractor under any agreement with the City must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.

The proposed solid waste contract reads as follows:

ARTICLE XVI: THAT, All solid wastes, yard waste, and recyclable materials collected by the Contractor shall be disposed at a processing facility or disposal area approved by the City and complying with all requirements of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or similar agency of any state in which such a facility is located.

ARTICLE XXIII: THAT, Contractor shall hold City harmless from any and all costs, fees, or damages assessed from the closing of any landfill or facility used by the Contractor for the disposition of solid waste, yard waste or recyclable materials, under this contract.

4) Lastly, if we throw out American Disposal's bid, as suggested by Mrs. Brewer, we will be doing the taxpayers a great disservice. American has provided more than adequate solid waste collection for the residents and businesses of Carthage. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. They have provided many services free of charge that many of the taxpayers and the Council are not aware of. Please remember the survey, 95% of the people are very happy with American. I believe that the City has many alternatives at this point, but I believe that Mrs. Brewers suggestion would cost the City many dollars over the life of a 5 year contract. "

I have an appointment with Mr. Dally at 1:30 PM on Monday, August 10 to discuss this matter further.

Joe Butler, Assistant to the City Engineer.

Land Transactions

Sellers sold the property at 909 S. Quail Run, Carthage, MO 64836, to Roger J. Bougher and Diane L. Bougher, husband and wife. The sale was handled by Carolyn K. Cole with Donal M. Meyers Realty, in cooperation with Linda Lawson with Lawson and Wilson Better Homes and Gardens. Effective date 07/10/98.

S.H. Plummer and M.L. Plummer, husband and wife, sold the property at 1228 Forest, Carthage, MO 64836, to Vincent S. Johnson and Nancy R. Johnson, husband and wife. The sale was handled by Kent Neil with RE/MAX Carthage, in cooperation with Pete Randall with Donal M. Meyers Realty. Effective Date 07/15/98.

Bank United of Texas FSB sold the property at 727 Budlong, Carthage, MO 64836. The sale was handled by Allyn Burt with Charles Burt, Inc., Realtors, in cooperation with Donal Meyers with Donal M. Meyers Realty. Effective Date 07/31/98.

David T. Honaker bought property on Grant St., Carthage, MO 64836. The sale was handled by Donal Myers with Donal M. Meyers Realty in cooperation with Louise Barton with Century 21 Homefolks, Real Estate.

Commentary

Martin "Bubs" Hohulin
State Representative, District 126

Many of you have been calling our office upset about the new tax on your phone bills. After checking in to it, I am upset too. There has been a lot of press about the hooking up of schools to the Internet and we’ve all seen the pictures of President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore with their sleeves rolled up, pulling wires to get schools "hooked up".

While this doesn’t seem like a bad idea, what you haven’t seen is a picture of your hard earned money taking wing and flying out of your pocket in the form of a tax that was never approved or even voted on by Congress or any other legislative body.

I’ll try and explain what happened. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a federal agency answerable to the current Presidential administration. Al Gore has made an issue of a report that says more white people own computers than blacks and rich people own more computers than poor people.

He is now prepared to show his unlimited compassion by spending your money to get more computers for those that don’t have them. I wonder if he has noticed that some folks have nicer cars, bigger homes, and sharper clothes than others? Maybe he can use some more of your money to fix those problems too!

Anyway, he has leaned on the FCC to misinterpret a 1996 law and enact a tax on phone bills. The Administration and FCC claim the law allows them and not Congress to decide at what level to set the tax. Many folks assume that all laws are voted on and passed by Congress or the State Legislatures and you would think that would be the case. Not so. Governors and the President can use what is known as an executive order.

It is basically a dictator move that enacts a law while bypassing the legislative system. These executive orders carry the same force of law as any other statute. While this tax is not an executive order it might as well be. The current administration has basically ordered the FCC to impose the tax and say the law allows them to do it. Giving our students every opportunity to learn is a great idea. I don’t know of anyone against it. However, putting yet another tax on an already overtaxed citizenry is a terrible idea, especially when it is a tax that was imposed by non-elected bureaucrats.

What’s the answer? Gore and Clinton could tell the FCC to rescind the tax, (not likely), or Congress could pass a bill introduced by Senator John Ashcroft, R-MO, which would forbid federal agencies from imposing taxes without Congressional approval. Likely, but time consuming and meanwhile we go on paying it.

Seems unfair, a tax can be imposed at Al Gore’s whim but it takes an act of Congress to get it repealed. Ain’t government wonderful?

As usual, I can be reached at House Post Office, State Capitol, Jefferson City, MO 65101 or 1-800-878-7126 or mhohulin@services.state.mo.us for your questions, comments, or advice.

Just Jake Talkin'
Mornin',

If you've been payin' attention, you're gettin' the idea that haulin' trash can mount up to a pile a cash. Even with the low bidder, the five year contract is worth a just little over $2 million accordin' to City estimates.

'Course even at that, for most of us it's a real bargain. The alternative, burnin' trash and then haulin' the barrel to the dump ever' couple a three weeks, is a ritual that most of us would rather not have ta deal with I'd suppose. The fact that we happen ta be situated close to the Kansas line prob'ly does save us some money. They haven't seen the need to separate trash and yard waste like leaves up ta now and it's cheaper not ta separate the two. Missouri requires the separation but doesn't have any control over what Kansas does. Guess the City just has ta figure if it's worth another buck a month for each family ta keep our trash, and possibly a bigger portion of that $2 million, in our home state.

This is some fact, but mostly,

Just Jake Talkin'.

by

McCune Brooks Hospital

Health Notes

by Judith Sheldon

As this is being written, the tobacco industry is preparing to fight President Clinton’s executive order recognizing the FDA’s description of nicotine as addictive (the FDA used the industry’s own memos as part of their findings) and giving the agency the right to ban tobacco sales to children. A ban on using so-called "attractive" ads (Joe Camel, for example) and a ban on cigarette vending machines are other provisions of the order. The reaction from the industry is, I believe, unwarranted. After all (and I had faxes from one manufacturer on this just a few months ago) they’ve been telling the press for some time how they plan to discourage smoking in youngsters.

Both Democrats and Republicans have had their coffers filled with donations from tobacco companies. However, any small tobacco farmer impacted by the order should be helped. (Ironically, the companies have been ignoring the small farmers to buy cheaper South American tobacco.)

Let’s heed what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (as staunch a conservative Republican as you’ll ever meet) tells us: If we value the lives of our children, let’s do what we can to keep them from starting an addiction that mutilates (much surgery can be traced to nicotine-caused cancers) and kills.

ARCHIVES Index