Is it just me, or does anyone else cringe when Mayor Peyton says he wants to give a lucrative no-bid contract to a friend and political ally, but not to worry because he's checked it out and it's the best deal city taxpayers can get?
Has it been that long since his mea culpae for giving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to close friend Scott Teagle through a no-bid contract, despite Teagle being an unqualified contractor? Or since his apology for the $112,000 no-bid city contract he gave to former campaign aide Sheila Greene for her efficiency consulting? With the grand jury investigation of these debacles still fresh in our minds, along with the millions in taxpayer money lost on the Shipyards and Courthouse projects, is it any wonder we have trouble taking Peyton at his word when he says that the proposed $750 million no-bid contract with Waste Management is the best deal taxpayers can get?
One reason it's hard to trust this deal is that it is contingent upon a lack of transparency. Peyton's proposal ensures that the city would lack the right to review Waste Management's financial statements and related profits during the term of the agreement. That seems in direct conflict with the pledge the mayor made last month, following the latest grand jury investigation, when he said the city would ensure firms awarded big city contracts were financially solvent.
Waste Management has put a tempting deal on the table, but lobbyist Paul Harden says if the company is forced to compete with other bidders, then its offer is retracted and it will sue the city until the cows come home. If Waste Management's deal is so good, then why is the company afraid to have the process opened to competitive bidding?
Anyone who has watched this administration operate for the last five years understands the answer to that question. Waste Management's offer may be the best we taxpayers can get, but Peyton has thoroughly squandered his right to ask us to trust him on these types of issues.
Taxpayers in Duval County must take a stand against this proposal and call upon our elected officials on the City Council to vote down the proposed no-bid contract. Call or e-mail your Council representative today.
It is not just you Mandarin... Welcome by the way! :)
Mandarin, you aren't the only one! I agree with everything you have said. I also have a serious issue with the fact that the contract is worth 35 years!!! That is a very long time. So much will change in this city by the time the contract is up. It does nothing to promote environmentally creative solutions to waste and does nothing to promote decreasing our amount of waste, recycling, reusing, etc. It is not fiscally responsible to enter a contract like this. My council rep. already knows how I feel, and I encourage everyone to keep sending/calling.
Voice Your Opinion on This Issue at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/BidTheLandfill/index.html
Peyton's attempt to ram this no-bid contract is outrageous and needs to be stopped. I've already expressed my opposition and concerns with each city council member...everyone should do the same.
Much about this deal simply does not add up.
If they are afraid of being tied up in litigation over the original contract then its likely the city made some embarrassingly bad deal in the previous contracts that they would now have to cover and do not want public scrutiny on. Speculative possibilities abound: the city gave away land or management rights of some sort, had WM carry the costs of equipment or upgrades that they would now have to pay back, WM relied on some backroom promise for a contract extension/new contract, city legal missed punitive contract terms, or any number of other issues.
The council wants it to go to bid. The Mayors office refuses because they insist that this is the best deal out there and they are saving us millions. If the Mayor's office wants people to see the savings, then they'll need to own up to potential past mistakes the city has made in negotiating waste disposal. They'll have to go over the top with transparancy, as well. If it saves us money, show us how and win the day.
Otherwise, it leads the public to infer that this is yet another example of this administration's love affair with bid/procurement irregularities.
and the love affair with Paul Harden....
this deal sucks on all levels...give me a break....35 years, as if technology isn't looking into ways to recycle waste into other uses....nobody and that means nobody should have a 35 year contract!
There's no technology in this contract....didn't mean to give that impression if that's where you got that from. Technology in general is moving towards converting up to 90 percent of municipal waste into ethanol. If we allow this contract to go through for 35 years, landfills would and should be obsolete long before that.
As for Paul Harden, he's behind this as the attorney for Waste Management...and is a close buddy with Peyton, as well as Jake Godbold....this deal sucks, and Peyton wants to side step city procedures that dictate bids for such contracts. There's already at least one other company interested in bidding...so if this is such a wonderful deal, why not let it go up for bid, and let the best proposal win
Short-sighted....that the least of it...but yes, it is.
Waste technology 35 years ago didn't include widespread recycling, landfill gas conversion, closed disposal sites, or strong environmental oversight. Much has changed since the days of the "fill up the old quarry with trash" school of waste management and I'm willing to bet that technology will not be stagnant for the next 35 years. This will have to be one heck of well drafted contract to account for substantial industry and policy advancements.
A "well drafted contract" from our city legal staff? Uh. Right. ::)
QuoteCity Council won't be steamrolled on landfill
By Ron Littlepage
Mayor John Peyton has taken his garbage show on the road.
He has been lobbying City Council members in individual meetings and speaking to just about everyone who will listen.
His pitch: City Hall should circumvent its own rules and award a 35-year, $750-million no-bid contract to Waste Management to operate the city's Trail Ridge Landfill.
Even though he's taking potshots at opponents of the deal during his traveling shtick, Peyton insists he wants the debate to stick to the facts.
Here's a fact:
There are valid reasons the state and the city have rules about bidding contracts.
One is that the bid process, while not perfect, helps ensure that taxpayers get the best deal possible. That's especially important with a contract as large as this one.
Another reason is the bid process provides transparency, helping to eliminate the suspicion that back room deals are being made with favored friends and political supporters.
Here's another fact:
Peyton has been saying the deal his team negotiated with Waste Management behind closed doors will save taxpayers $200 million over the 35-year life of the contract.
The fact is others with expertise in the landfill business say that number is inflated.
They also say that opening the contract to other bidders could save taxpayers millions of dollars.
Here's another fact:
During his road show, Peyton has been saying I don't know what I'm talking about when I've written in columns that the contract should be open to other bidders.
I have met with Peyton's team on more than one occasion and heard their arguments.
I've also met more than once with representatives of Republic, another landfill company that wants to bid on the contract, and listened to that side.
It's a fact that Peyton has yet to have a face-to-face with Republic.
Just like it's a fact the Chamber of Commerce backed Peyton's position on the landfill contract after only hearing from Peyton and without the benefit of hearing what opponents have to say.
Here's another fact:
The Mayor's Office tried to ram this deal through the City Council last September as part of the council's adoption of this year's budget, but Council President Ronnie Fussell said no. Fussell still isn't going to be steam rolled.
In the weeks ahead, instead of going through the normal committee process, he will set up special meetings of the whole council to hear from all sides, including a report from the City Council auditor.
That's the way it should be done and that's when the real facts will come out.
And the fact is this contract, at the very least, should be bid. If Waste Management has the best deal, great. If not, taxpayers will save money
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2009-02-15/story/city_council_wont_be_steamrolled_on_landfill
Found this on urbanjacksonville... http://www.urbanjacksonville.info/
http://www.youtube.com/v/c08j6QAwTk4
But wait... there is more...
http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/ron_littlepage/2009-02-20/story/power_elites_join_the_fight_over_city_landfill_co
QuotePower elites join the fight over city landfill contract
Story updated at 12:25 AM on Friday, Feb. 20, 2009
Opening the contract to operate the city's Trail Ridge Landfill to other bidders is a no-brainer. Here's one reason why:
The team rosters on both sides are filled with some of Jacksonville's top political persuaders.
An e-mail from the Mayor's Office lists the players who have been meeting weekly to figure out how to push through Mayor John Peyton's plan to simply give the 35-year, $750-million contract to the current landfill operator, Waste Management.
Sitting at that table are people you would expect:
- Adam Hollingsworth, Peyton's chief of staff who has a long history in Jacksonville politics starting with a job with Charlie Bennett. He also worked for Corrine Brown and Ed Austin. He helped run the campaign of a Peyton opponent in 2003, Mike Weinstein.
- Alan Mosley, Peyton's chief administrative officer and a former Public Works director.
- Ebenezer Gujjarlapudi and Chris Pearson, the city employees responsible for the landfill.
Additional mayoral staffers are sitting in, but it's the others at the table who tell the tale:
- Mike Tolbert, a long-time political consultant who dates back to former mayors Hans Tanzler and Jake Godbold. He ran Peyton's campaign in 2003, fell out of favor, but is now back in the fold. He has had a long business relationship with Waste Management.
- Bruce Barcelo, another long-time political consultant with close ties to the Chamber.
- Michael Munz, who is closely tied to the city's top Republicans. He ran campaigns for Tillie Fowler and John Delaney. He's now with the Dalton Agency, a well connected advertising and public relations firm.
- And - ding, ding, ding - Paul Harden, big- time City Council lobbyist who represents Waste Management. His participation is interesting since he has threatened to sue the city "until the cows come home" if Waste Management doesn't get the contract.
Also lobbying for Waste Management, according to the city's list of registered lobbyists, are Godbold and Karen Stearn, a former St. Johns County commissioner.
Leading the charge to open the contract to other bidders is Republic Services, another large solid waste company that's just trying to get a chance to operate the landfill.
On the Republic team:
- Jim Arnold, who has more than three decades in the landfill business.
- Paul McCormick, another long-time political consultant who, ironically, worked with Tolbert in 2003 to get Peyton elected.
- Michael Saylor, who once served as the city's planning director.
- Alberta Hipps, a former City Council president whose firm now lobbies City Hall.
- Tom Ingram and Stephen Greenhut, attorneys with Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller.
Susie Wiles, formerly a top aide with both Delaney and Peyton, worked with Republic but is no longer on the payroll.
Are you getting the picture?
City contracts, especially one this large, should be bid to remove politics and arm-twisting from the process.
That's not happening here. Just look at the players involved.
You have heard of the expression "follow the money....".
That applies here along with a corollary: "follow Paul Harden...."
Government in the sunshine - let me grab my sunglasses! 8)
Quote from: stephendare on February 20, 2009, 10:53:34 AM
wow. this issue is really kind of heating up.
Does anyone know what the hell is the basic storyline?
And what is the Paul Harden connection?
The basic story line....let's see, we have Paul Harden who's the attorney for Waste Management, the one who is threatening to sue the city if the contract goes up for bid....even though the current contract doesn't expire for 7 more years? As well as Peyton is doing his best to ram this down our throats, at the cost of 750 million and 35 years. Good Ole' Susie Wiles who was supporting Republic in wanting this to be open for bid, until Peyton asked her not to help them, so she stepped aside. Or the fact that this is coming up for vote before the city council.
Does this help answer your questions?
Front page of the Times Union...
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-02-22/story/inside_the_fight_for_your
QuoteTrail Ridge Landfill: Inside the fight for your $750 million
By Tia Mitchell Story updated at 3:45 AM on Sunday, Feb. 22, 2009
In the coming weeks, the Jacksonville City Council will get a chance to weigh in on Mayor John Peyton’s proposal to award Waste Management a $750 million contract extension to operate the Trail Ridge landfill. Here is how you can weigh in:
Mayor John Peyton
Phone: (904) 630-1776
E-mail: JPeyton@coj.net
Council President Ronnie Fussell
Phone: (904) 630-1393
E-mail: RonnieF@coj.net
Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton said his plan to award Waste Management a $750 million contract extension to continue operating the city's landfill is unpopular because it's misunderstood.
"The unfortunate part about this is it's been framed poorly from the beginning," Peyton said, "and it was framed by the people that want to kill the deal."
Much of that opposition has come from Republic Services, a Waste Management competitor that believes the contract should be bid and the public needs to hear both sides of the issue.
"We want the citizens of Jacksonville to know that there is lots of money to be saved by bidding this out," said Paul McCormick, a Republic spokesman.
Though Peyton and his staff have tried hard to sell their plan to City Council members, the notion of not bidding such a large contract is still unpopular.
"On the surface, a no-bid environment is not where people want to go," he said. "It is counter-intuitive, granted, but this situation is different."
Peyton said he isn't sure how successful his efforts have been. The council hasn't discussed the issue as a group, and a vote is likely weeks away.
Council President Ronnie Fussell said members have a lot of questions about the plan and legal issues. Despite the many hours he has spent looking over documents, he said he isn't convinced.
Eventually, Peyton said, the council will be.
"My experience has been the more they study it, the deeper they drill down, the better this deal looks," he said.
Among the legal hurdles: Early on, Waste Management lobbyist Paul Harden said the company would sue "until the cows come home" if the deal was rejected.
"Paul Harden's comments have not been helpful," Peyton said.
Harden and other local political heavyweights have met frequently with members of the mayor's staff for Trail Ridge strategy sessions.
Councilman John Crescimbeni said the meetings send a bad message.
"If I was going to push a no-bid contract," he said, "I would try to distance myself from the actual vendor."
Timeline
1986
July: City efforts to buy an 800-acre landfill site from a private company are thwarted in court. But the city and the landowner begin negotiations on a separate parcel of land near the St. Johns County line.
November: St. Johns County asks the state to block Duval County's efforts to build a landfill near the county line.
December: The Sunbeam Road landfill, a 241-acre site owned and operated by Waste Management, is closed after years of residents' complaints.
1988
Dec. 1: The East landfill on Girvin Road is closed as a result of neighbors' complaints and threats of lawsuits, though it has several months of capacity remaining. The North landfill on New Berlin Road, with only a few months of capacity remaining, becomes the city's sole landfill. Within the week there are rumors that East landfill will reopen.
1989
Jan. 5: Mayor Tommy Hazouri reopens East landfill, his hand forced by legal challenges and community pressures.
January: Mid-American Waste Systems asks for the city's permission to build and operate a landfill on U.S. 301 south of Baldwin.
March: A competitor emerges. Waste Management of North America announces it also is looking to buy land on the Westside.
June: The City Council votes against Mid-American. Instead, Hazouri decides the city should own a new landfill and allow private companies to operate it. That contract would be worth an estimated $1 billion over 20 years.
October: Waste Management identifies land near the Baker County line for its proposed landfill, called Trail Ridge.
1990
January: St. Johns County begins lobbying Gov. Bob Martinez and the Cabinet to block permits Jacksonville needs to build the Southeast landfill. State regulators agree to allow the North landfill to be built higher than permitted, adding one year of capacity. In addition to Waste Management and Mid-American, the city receives proposals from two other companies vying to operate a new Westside landfill.
Aug. 27: After Waste Management's proposal is ranked No. 1, Hazouri selects the company as the winner.
1991
Feb. 12: Gov. Lawton Chiles and his Cabinet reject a stormwater permit application for the Southeast landfill. The City Council abandons the project to focus on Trail Ridge.
June 11: The City Council approves the contract with Waste Management.
Aug. 13: The council agrees to pay Baker County $1.3 million to halt its opposition.
1992
Jan. 27: Ground is broken on Trail Ridge.
March 1: East landfill on Girvin Road is closed.
May 18: First load of trash is dumped at Trail Ridge. North landfill is closed the next day.
2003
Mayor John Delaney's attempts to renegotiate Waste Management's contract fall through.
2007
Mayor John Peyton's administration begins negotiations with Waste Management to extend its Trail Ridge contract.
2008
June 24: Peyton asks the City Council for a contract extension for $750 million.
Sept. 15: City Council committees debate the contract renewal for the first time. Several council members balk at the price tag, lack of information from the administration and threats of a Waste Management lawsuit.
2009
Jan. 29: Peyton sends an e-mail to constituents in hopes of drumming up support for the contract.
Feb. 16: Republic Services submits a letter to the City Council saying it will agree to everything Waste Management has and save the city millions if it is allowed to bid on the contract.
Early March: The City Council is expected to meet for the first time together to discuss the proposed contract.
Source: Times-Union archives
There are companies that want to bid on this, and there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't go up for bid. Peyton is wrong in trying to ram this down our throats, and city council needs to gain the back bone to stand up for what is the right thing to do.
QuoteJacksonville Mayor John Peyton said his plan to award Waste Management a $750 million contract extension to continue operating the city's landfill is unpopular because it's misunderstood. "The unfortunate part about this is it's been framed poorly from the beginning," Peyton said, "and it was framed by the people that want to kill the deal."
Much of that opposition has come from Republic Services, a Waste Management competitor that believes the contract should be bid and the public needs to hear both sides of the issue. "We want the citizens of Jacksonville to know that there is lots of money to be saved by bidding this out," said Paul McCormick, a Republic spokesman.
Though Peyton and his staff have tried hard to sell their plan to City Council members, the notion of not bidding such a large contract is still unpopular. "On the surface, a no-bid environment is not where people want to go," he said. "It is counter-intuitive, granted, but this situation is different." Peyton said he isn't sure how successful his efforts have been.
The council hasn't discussed the issue as a group, and a vote is likely weeks away. Council President Ronnie Fussell said members have a lot of questions about the plan and legal issues. Despite the many hours he has spent looking over documents, he said he isn't convinced. Eventually, Peyton said, the council will be. "My experience has been the more they study it, the deeper they drill down, the better this deal looks," he said.
Among the legal hurdles: Early on, Waste Management lobbyist Paul Harden said the company would sue "until the cows come home" if the deal was rejected. "Paul Harden's comments have not been helpful," Peyton said. Harden and other local political heavyweights have met frequently with members of the mayor's staff for Trail Ridge strategy sessions.
Councilman John Crescimbeni said the meetings send a bad message. "If I was going to push a no-bid contract," he said, "I would try to distance myself from the actual vendor."
By Tia Mitchell
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-02-22/story/inside_the_fight_for_your (http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-02-22/story/inside_the_fight_for_your)
I am sure Peyton has "reasons"... he has been the one who has not articulated those reasons very well. he says...
Quote"The unfortunate part about this is it's been framed poorly from the beginning," Peyton said, "and it was framed by the people that want to kill the deal."
I disagree... he had the power to frame this as he wanted from the beginning. He failed to do so.
Convince me... Mr Mayor.
This is the mayors official explanation that was sent out on Jan 29th.
QuoteDear Friends:
After many months of negotiating a contract for the disposal of solid waste at Trail Ridge Landfill, the city has reached an agreement to extend its contract with its current landfill operator, Waste Management â€" a move that saves taxpayers more than $200 million. As mayor, it is my duty to seek the best deal for the taxpayers of this city, and I am convinced that this agreement with Waste Management cannot be matched.
While the Jacksonville City Council must ultimately sign off on this deal, my staff worked very hard to represent the best interests of the taxpayer while at the bargaining table. Below, I have outlined the merits of the bill currently before the council.
Garbage is big business, and although we may only think about it when the collection at our home is missed, the management of waste is critical to our community’s continued economic development. A community’s failure to manage garbage collection well, or failure to have a quality landfill operating at a competitive price, directly affects the taxpayers’ bottom line. If the city’s current landfill space reaches capacity, which it is projected to do in five to seven years, we will be forced to stop development across Jacksonville and pay more than $30 million annually to haul waste out of the county.
The current proposal supports my desire to save taxpayer money, protect the city from future liability and prevent any disruption to the disposal of waste in our community. First, the city will save about $20 million on its existing contract with Waste Management, which was initially bid in 1991. Second, Waste Management will assume all environmental liability associated with operating a landfill, saving the city more than $150 million. In addition, it will also free up more than $30 million to meet other city needs.
The city is only able to realize these savings by extending its contract with Waste Management. I have met with independent waste disposal experts, who have no vested financial interest in this deal, and they have assured me that no other company could match, much less better, the proposed contract. If council chooses to bid the contract, more than $200 million in guaranteed savings will be lost, and taxpayers will foot the bill. Likewise, if the council chooses to bid the contract, it will trigger an immediate $30 million-plus cost to close the current site.
Opponents of this deal have chosen to focus on the politics and personalities of this debate, rather than the undeniable financial benefits to the taxpayer. The deal on the table was negotiated by city engineers who have years of environmental and landfill experience â€" not politicians, lawyers or public relations agents. If our opponents’ lobbyists are successful in clouding the rhetoric with scare tactics and misrepresentation, it will not only cost taxpayers millions of dollars, but Jacksonville could also be faced with a future landfill crisis that could shut down growth and development in our city.
I cannot, in good conscience, let that happen on my watch.
Respectfully,
John Peyton
Mayor
QuoteFirst, the city will save about $20 million on its existing contract with Waste Management, which was initially bid in 1991.
How?
QuoteSecond, Waste Management will assume all environmental liability associated with operating a landfill, saving the city more than $150 million.
Why would we not require another bidder to assume the same liability?
QuoteIf council chooses to bid the contract, more than $200 million in guaranteed savings will be lost,
Once again... Why?
QuoteLikewise, if the council chooses to bid the contract, it will trigger an immediate $30 million-plus cost to close the current site.
Do we not own the landfill? Why must it be closed?
Sorry, but Peyton's letter is a pile of crap....there's little to nothing sincere about it. If this is such a wonderful deal, then why not open it up to bidding and let it stand on it's own merits. This violates the city procedures and it should go up for bidding, plain and simple.
Exactly!
First, kudos to the T-U for their coverage today of this issue. While I wished it appeared a lot sooner than now, better late than never. The graphics, pro/con table, and timeline were most helpful in conveying what is at stake and how we got here. I thought the law professor's analysis and the mayor's interview were incisive as well and gave the neutral observer pause to think this one out more carefully. As is the case, most times, civic issues aren't as black and white as they first appear.
I believe that articles like this are critical to the survival of local media (not to mention the success of our community) and hope that all local media take the cue and start doing more pieces like it. (Imagine if our local electronic media produced a local version akin to 60 minutes or Nightline!) [P.S. - While it wasn't too long, I also liked the cover article in Folio telling us about the behind the scenes manipulations alleged at JPA in the recent cruise terminal lawsuit.]
The landfill issue, like mosts, may be more complex than meets the eye. I think people's concerns and gripes relate to the ongoing lack of transparency that civic decisions lack time after time. If our leaders are really acting in the interests of the community, they should be satisfied that the recommended decisions will hold up to public scrutiny. When will they realize that backroom antics, subversion of processes, and downplaying of questions just fuel the speculation that these decisions are not in favor of the community?
Regardless of the merits, the Mayor, City Council, JAA, JTA, and the JPA have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot over the Landfill, Courthouse, Cruise Terminal, Craig Field, Skyway, BRT, Mass Transit, deals with developers, etc. by springing on the public at the last minute, or at least long after they have "locked in" their positions, issues of concern to the greater community without appropriate public forums and inputs.
MJ webmasters, please see my recent post under feedback. This and other MJ bulletin boards are NOT having their threads listed on your home page's "Latest Discussion" listing displaying the last 8 active threads. Please advise on a fix. Thanks!
Quote from: stephendare on February 22, 2009, 02:17:23 PM
stjr. Our board voted not to include the politics section on the daily feed of the front page after one of the forums conservative posters claimed that the 'liberal' opinions (which basically consisted of predictions that Obama might win the election, that the economy was heading for a crash, and that global warming was a concern to worry about) were 'destroying the credibility' of the site.
That poster then created such a circus of name calling and offensive photos that our board ended up voting to remove the national politics section from view of everyone except registered users.
I happen to agree with you on this, but we have yet to revisit the issue.
Stephen, thanks for the prompt reply. Since these posts DO show under "Read the latest posts" as well as under the "Discussion" board lists, I think that MJ is getting out of the rain while already wet. Assuming MJ retains "editorial" control of the site, certain posts may just require deletion when over the top rather than spoil it for all others. Yahoo has a system whereby readers can call objectionable material material to their attention. They will weigh the matter and delete it if they feel it is inappropriate. Mostly this happens when certain 4 letter words are explicitly typed out. It could also apply to inappropriate character assaults, especially of non-public figures, or something that amounts to liable. [P.S. - A reminder the Feedback and Suggestion thread is also absent from the Home page.]
MJ should revisit my other feedback thread regarding what MJ should focus on. I would like to suggest MJ consider subdividing the home page into FIRST COAST COMMUNITY ISSUES (i.e. meaty issues that can be influenced or controlled by the First Coast community), FIRST COAST CULTURE (local events, happenings, restaurants, night-life, area artists, off-beat subjects, etc, that have a root or two in the First Coast), and NON-LOCAL SUBJECTS (national and international topics, pet peeves, culture, special interests, travel, etc. that really are not directly or clearly related to the influence of people living on the First Coast). Perhaps the left-right debates could be dumped into a PURELY POLITICS forum where those entering realize its more or less a no holds barred, not for the feint of heart, match of ideologies! Maybe us moderates could get a few chuckles out of it :D
... and some posters saw and ranted about left/right in every issue
I agree, good for the TU for bringing the landfill issue, literally, front and center.
89.9 FM Special
* One hour conversation with Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton about the controversy over the Trail Ridge Landfill and other issues.
Part 1: http://www.wjct.org/mp3/weekly/fccmar5a.mp3
Part 2: http://www.wjct.org/mp3/weekly/fccmar05b.mp3
Are they going to open this up to multiple bids now?
let's hope they know now to open it up for bid. Waste Management can still bid,and let's see who has the best offer. There never should've been any suggest to the contrary
And the city should be working on getting the necessary permits for the next "cell" now, while drawing up a RFP that protects the City.