[PAGE 1]
711
COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
March 3, 2015
A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Jacksonville was held Tuesday,
March 3, 2015 beginning at 5:30 PM in Meeting Rooms A and B of Jacksonville City Hall.
Present were: Mayor Sammy Phillips, presiding; Mayor Pro-Tem Michael Lazzara and Council
Members: Jerry Bittner, Randy Thomas, Bob Warden, Angelia Washington, and Jerome
Willingham. Also present were: Richard Woodruff, City Manager; Ronald Massey, Deputy
City Manager, Glenn Hargett, Assistant City Manager for Communications and Community
Affairs; Gayle Maides, Finance Director, Wally Hansen, Public Services Director, Carmen
Miracle, City Clerk; and John Carter, City Attorney.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Phillips called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Mayor Pro-Tem Lazzara, seconded by Councilman Willingham,
and unanimously approved to adopt the agenda as presented.
COMMERCIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION BID DOCUMENT
Using the PowerPoint presentation attached to the official minutes as Exhibit A, Mr.
Woodruff provided an extensive review of the following:
• Collection Alternatives with pros and cons,
• Bid Document Issues,
• Billing and Collection Pros and Cons,
• Ad Hoc User Group
• Potential Action Plan.
Key discussion points during the presentation included that NC law did not require the
City to provide Commercial Garbage Collection. In addition, because it was a service contract,
there was no requirement for competitive bidding. Council could offer a franchise agreement
and could negotiate a contract with one vendor or with multiple vendors if they chose to do so.
The City was currently providing the service but they were projecting a $250,000 shortfall for
the current year. This was due in large part to an unfortunate accident resulting in workers

[PAGE 2]
712
compensation claims and overtime issues.
Council discussed an important ‘pro’ to the City providing the service was that the City
made recycling was a priority. In addition to environmental savings, decreasing the stream of
waste going into the landfill helped extend the life of the landfill, ultimately saving money for
the taxpayers. Also, whether the City continued to provide the service or it was provided by a
vendor, it was important financially for the City to do the billing and collections. Due to how the
landfill fee was calculated, it resulted in a surplus that helped offset the cost for residential
collection.
A franchise agreement, whether exclusive or nonexclusive was an option in which one or
more vendors would provide the service. The Council could determine the criteria of the
franchise and contract, set the rates, stipulate the level of recycling priority, or other criteria.
A major issue to consider when contemplating a non-exclusive franchise or deciding to
allow for the free market was the displacement law. Displacement law applied if the City
opened up the service to various vendors and then decided to go back into the business
themselves or exclusively with a vendor. Displacement law required the City to give an 18-
month notice or provide payment to any current service providers that would be displaced before
changing to a more exclusive service.
Regarding the free market option, Councilman Bittner pointed out that the City would
still be involved to some extent in order to enforce standards for health, safety, and welfare. Mr.
Woodruff agreed, and that was one of the cons of a free market because if a business did not
contract with a vendor to have his garbage picked up, the City would have to send out a code
enforcement officer to issue citations.
Discussion was held on the bid document issues raised by the major vendors. Recycling
requirements was an issue for the vendors in the former bid document. While customers were
not mandated to recycle, the vendor was required to provide recycling containers and pickup to
any customer who wanted to participate. This created a financial exposure for the vendor in not
knowing how many containers, which cost $600 to $900 each, they might be required to provide
at any point in time. Suggestions to remedy this issue included the City providing the recycling
container, customer providing the recycling container, or limiting the vendors to only having to
provide a reasonable number of containers per year.

[PAGE 3]
713
Councilman Bittner asked about State regulations on recycling. Mr. Terrell, Sanitation
Supervisor, reported that the State had set recycling percentage goals, which were technically
still in effect; however, those goals were not enforced, because the State had not been able to
meet those goals in the last 10 plus years.
Councilman Bittner asked how the County handled commercial garbage pickup and
recycling. Mr. Woodruff said that the County operated under a free market system. For
recycling, the County had drop off sites and there was no mandatory requirement by the County
for a business to recycle.
Councilman Willingham asked under a scenario with an exclusive franchise and
mandatory recycling, what would the City do with the recycling dumpsters we currently own.
Mr. Woodruff said if the City was out of the business, we could offer to sell them to the vendor
who was awarded the contract, or continue to supply them as a way to encourage recycling, or
sell them on the free market. He added that he thought the City owned about 60 recycling
containers.
Mr. Woodruff said that one other option that could be considered is for the vendor to pick
up commercial garbage with the City continuing to pick up commercial recycling, possibly for a
nominal fee, although any significant charge for recycling would discourage recycling.
Councilman Warden asked if there was a limitation on some of the businesses to do
recycling due to not having the space on the property for an extra dumpster.
Mr. Woodruff said yes, it was definitely an issue. The UDO required a corral or an
enclosure for the dumpsters. Several businesses would like to have a recycling dumpster, but
they did not want it sitting outside and their enclosure was too small for a second container.
Another bid document issue was the bond requirement. The vendors reported that the
most recent bid required a performance bond of $400,000 in order to make sure the bidders were
all qualified. The purpose of a performance bond was to guarantee performance, however, bonds
were difficult and took time to collect. The large companies (Waste Management and Waste
Industries) felt a bond was unnecessary and an added expense for them. He suggested instead of
requiring the bond, they could place pre-qualification standards in the bid documents.
A discussion was held regarding number of pickups per week and Saturday service. The
current contract provided for twice per week service although some businesses said they did not
need it twice, while others wanted it five times a week. Restaurants in particular generally

[PAGE 4]
714
seemed to need a pickup on Saturday. The City currently had enough commercial accounts to
justify a Saturday pickup, but under the old contract, if a business wanted Saturday service, they
had to negotiate it directly with the vendor and the prices were substantial.
Considering that it was more costly to run a route on Saturday, Mayor Phillips asked if
scheduling changes in the Monday through Friday routes so that restaurants were picked up
Friday would help. Mr. Woodruff said their heaviest route days were Monday and Friday. Even
with a tip on Friday, the volume of business often generated full dumpers at restaurants on
Saturday. Saturday service was optional for those businesses who needed it; however, he
recommended the bid document require a fixed price for Saturday service, because of the
exorbitant prices charged in the past.
Councilman Bittner initiated a discussion about container size with variable number of
pickups. He said that based on experience the City should know which businesses could get by
with pickups once a week, five days a week, or that required Saturday service. That data could be
used to create a formula that allowed for the least cost to the consumer and operating costs for
the vendor.
Mr. Terrell said they could go through their customers and gather that data, but also
pointed out that customers migrating to once a week pickup often called in for unscheduled
pickups, which affected route scheduling and it was less efficient to make special trips.
Regarding the City performing the billing and collecting, Mr. Woodruff said from his
standpoint if the City did not perform the billing and collection, they would take a large financial
hit relative to the offset for residential accounts. This was because the City billed based on a full
container volume but when it went to the landfill, it was charged based on weight and the City
received the difference.
In terms of the User Meeting, Mr. Woodruff said that the participants were encouraged to
answer the survey freely. Important findings included that 90% were against the free market;
100% thought the City was providing dependable service, and if cost were the same, 88%
preferred the City provide the service. In terms of container purchase, they felt the City’s price
was too high but if it were lower, they would use them.
Councilman Bittner asked if the City’s cost for the containers was a legitimate criticism.
Mr. Woodruff said yes. The City had calculated the fee based on a 12-month return on
investment whereas they had learned the vendors calculated it over 3 to 5 years. Councilman

[PAGE 5]
715
Bittner asked the average lifespan of the container. Mr. Terrell said approximately ten years.
Mr. Woodruff reviewed the recommendations and action plan as outlined in Exhibit A
and asked Council to provide him with any feedback.
Councilman Willingham asked about the criteria of the Bid document. He felt it was
important to be able to compare apples to apples in terms of the level of service the City was
giving and the private sector having an opportunity to provide that service for less.
Councilman Willingham felt that in terms of recycling, not having a requirement would
set the City back in environmental efforts and he felt it should definitely be a component in a
way that encouraged more recycling. Mayor Pro-Tem Lazzara agreed and felt the issue for
businesses was more to do with a capacity for a second dumpster on site. Councilman Warden
suggested looking at whether they needed to make changes from a site plan standpoint. Mr.
Massey said that had been done in the UDO, but it did not apply to existing businesses prior to
the adoption of the UDO.
Regarding the City handling the existing billing, Mr. Warden said it did bother him that
the commercial side was supporting the residential side.
Discussion was held on specific criteria of the bid document and a majority of Council
supported the following:
• Eliminating the performance bond requirement;
• Keep the minimum level of service at twice per week;
• City continue with billing and collections;
• Franchise approach;
• Recycling pickup by the vendor
Mr. Carter clarified that the City would bid on the franchise contract in accordance with
the bid documents the same as any other vendor and Council responded yes.

[PAGE 6]
716
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mayor Pro-Tem Lazzara, seconded by Councilman Warden, and
unanimously adopted to adjourn the meeting at 6:42 PM.
Adopted by the Jacksonville City Council in regular session this 7th day of April, 2015.
______________________________
Sammy Phillips, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Carmen K. Miracle, City Clerk

[PAGE 7]
Jacksonville City Council
Agenda
1. Commercial Garbage Program
Special Workshop Meeting
March 3, 2015
Slide #21
Vendor Meeting
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Commercial Garbage Purpose
Discuss Potential Bid
Collection
Documents & Service
User Meeting
Service
Thursday, February 26, 2015
• A service Contract Purpose
–No requirement to bid Input & Suggestions
• No Requirement for City to provide
Service
• Free Market
Slide #25

[PAGE 8]
Option Analysis
Presentation Collection Alternatives
1. Collection Alternatives 1. City ServiceBilling & Collection
 With Pros & Cons 2. City Franchise Provide Service
2. Bid Document Issues  Collection by
1. Exclusive Franchise
3. Billing and Collection Pros & Cons 2. Non-Exclusive Franchise
4. Ad Hoc User Group  Billing & Collections by
1. City
5. Recommendation 2. Vendor
 Potential Action Plan 3. Free market–no arrangement
Slide #27 Slide #28
City Provides Service, Billing & Collection City Provides Service, Billing & Collection
Pros Cons
• Quality of Service • Offset for Billing & • Cost of Service must • Billing & Collecting
• Management of Personnel Collection cover any shortfall • Rate Adjustments
• Missed Service Control • Recycling Priority • Personnel Issues • Insurance Claims for
• Back Up Service Plan • Appearance of Equipment • Fleet Maintenance Damage
• City Establishes Accounts • City Audits routes & • Worker’s Compensation • Painting of Cabs
• Collections Guaranteed service Claims • City Manages System &
• City Collects Landfill fees • Employee Time & Time
• Rates Controlled by City
• Emergency Service Option Account Setup • The “Unknown”
Slide #29 Slide #30
City Franchise Exclusive Service City Franchise Exclusive Service
Pros Cons
• All Costs by Others • Bulk Purchasing for • Quality of Service • Damage Claims
• Fixed rates to customers Customers • Customer Complaints • Level of Collection
• Vendor responsible for: • Rates Set by Council • Back up plan by others Equipment
– Personnel • Competition for Bid & • City Responsible, but… • Level of Recycling Priority
– Equipment Service • Rates set by Council • Limited Emergency
– Repairs • Level of Recycling Priority Service
• Management of Contract
– Fuel
– Staff Time
– Route Management
– Assess penalties
– Cost verses Service
Slide #31 Slide #32

[PAGE 9]
City Franchise Non-Exclusive Service Free Market Service
Pros Cons Pros
• Competition between • Rates may be higher • City not a player
Vendors • Possible Customer • Market fixes rates
• All of the pros from Confusion • Customer in control
Exclusive Service • Displacement Issue • Competition of vendors
• Additional Vehicles on
Streets
• All Cons from
Exclusive Service
Slide #33 Slide #34
Free Market Service
Bid Document Key Issues
Organizational Structure
Cons
• City Not a Player • Not available for
1. Franchise vs. Free Market System
• Rate set by Market Emergency Service
• No Bulk Purchasing • Additional Large Trucks 2. Franchise
Benefit on Streets  Exclusive
• Quality Control • Loss of revenue  Non-exclusive
• Code Enforcement • Billing Staff
3. Billing & Collections Method
• Displacement Issue • Landfill Offset for
Residential  City
 Vendor
Slide #35 Slide #36
Bid Document Key Issues Bid Document Key Issues
3. Billing & Collections 4. Recycling Pick Up
 City  Mandatory by Vendor
 Vendor  Who pays for containers
Slide #37 Slide #38

[PAGE 10]
Bid Document Key Issues Bid Document Key Issues
5. Bond Requirement 6. Term & Extensions
 $400,000  5 Year Base
 Pre-Qualify Vendors  2 One-Year Extensions approved
by Council
Slide #39 Slide #40
Bid Document Key Issues Bid Document Key Issues
7. Cost of Living Adjustment 8. Service Level
 Annual Adjustment with Council  Current Minimum: 2 Per Week
Approval  No Minimum: Market Sets
 Automatic 1% with additional  Saturday Service part of Contract
considered by Council
 Other
Slide #41 Slide #42
City Performs Billing & Collections
Bid Document Key Issues
9. Missed Service
Pros
• City Accounts established • Accuracy in Bills & Service
 Fines after a set number
• Utility Fund minor offset • Reduced write offs
 Incomplete Route Fines
• Guaranteed Collection • One Comprehensive
• City Customer Service Utility Bill
• Revenue Offset for
Residential
• Audit of Service
• Variable Payment Plans
Slide #43 Slide #44

[PAGE 11]
City Performs Billing & Collections Billing & Collections by Vendor
Cons Pros
• Staff time and setup of • Cost of Sending Bills • Vendor covers all costs
accounts and bills • Employee turnover • Not a City function
• Increase in Utility bill for – No City account info
Commercial Customers • Frees Utility Billing Staff
• Financial Accountability • Landfill Fees Paid by
and Audit Trail Vendor
• Customer Complaints • Reduces City Utility Bill
• Vendor handles Billing
Complaints
Slide #45 Slide #46
Billing & Collections by Vendor User Meeting
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Cons
General Discussion
• Will increase customer • Vendor controls funds
bills, mail & staff time • Vendor controls customer • Quality of Service
• Complaints: No City service • Fee for Service
involvement • Customers must setup • Contracting or City
• No offset to Utility Fund new accounts operates
• Eliminates Residential • City accounts must be • Free Market Operation
Collection Offset purged User Group Issues
• No Audit Trail 20Invited • Recycling
11 Attended • Containers
Slide #47
User Meeting User Meeting
Surveys Surveys
Service & Customer Service 8.6 out of 10 City Fee too High
Containers Reduce $, Will Use
Dependable Service 100%
DesireCombined Rate
10%For
Free Market Option 50% Cost
90%Against The Service
50% Quality
Min Twice Week 56%
Service Level City 88%
Min Once Week 44% If Cost is theSame
Vendor 12%
NominalFee
Recycling Free Service Why? Customer Service
More Containers

[PAGE 12]
Recommendations &
Action Plans
1. Finalize Bid Documents
2. Prepare Ordinance Changes
3. Pre-Qualify Bidders
4. Advertise & Receive Bids
5. Council Action or Direction
Slide #51