Corporate titan Waste Management was not prepared for a fight at the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, Dec. 2, a mistake that could ultimately cost the company a contract for recycling services in Big Park and other unincorporated areas of the county.
Sedona Recycles, a small, local nonprofit, gave the corporate giant, which reported $3.5 billion in earnings so far this year, a run for its money.
By Greg Ruland
Larson Newspapers
Corporate titan Waste Management was not prepared for a fight at the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, Dec. 2, a mistake that could ultimately cost the company a contract for recycling services in Big Park and other unincorporated areas of the county.
Sedona Recycles, a small, local nonprofit, gave the corporate giant, which reported $3.5 billion in earnings so far this year, a run for its money.
A group of seven Sedona Recycles advocates persuaded supervisors to throw out WM’s low-ball bid on the contract and start over after WM representatives were unable to answer questions raised by the group during the meeting.
Supervisors may not review bids again until June, after contract specifications are clarified and new bids are received by the Yavapai County Public Works Department, said Phil Bourdon, Public Works director.
In the meantime, Bourdon will recommend a month-to-month extension of Sedona Recycle’s existing contract at the Board of Supervisors meeting Monday, Dec. 15.
“Sedona Recycles is doing a fine job,” Bourdon said.
The contract for “Verde Valley Area” recycling services covers territory that includes unincorporated areas from Cornville to Verde Village, including the Village of Oak Creek.
Sedona Recycles won the contract every time it was put out for bids since 1999. Currently, the nonprofit services five county sites with 40 bins, Sedona Recycles Executive Director Jill McCutcheon said.
The public-private relationship between the nonprofit and the county is considered a model for the nation, Sedona Recycles President Jim Bishop, Jr., said.
Going into the meeting, Sedona Recycles expected the worst, Bishop said. “We were told it was a done deal.”
By law, supervisors were required to accept the “lowest responsible bidder,” Bourdon said.
Because WM bid $750 per month to provide service, Sedona Recycles, which bid $5,350 per month, stood to lose the contract and a significant source of its annual income.
Presentations by McCutcheon, Bishop and five others raised eyebrows on the board, provoking board members to delve deeper into the details of the contract.
“I can’t believe how unprepared Waste Management was,” Bishop said.
During the hearing, it was revealed Waste Management intended to provide 10 bins to be picked up a total of 87 times per month. In comparison, Sedona Recycles services its 40 bins a total of 374 times per month, McCutcheon said.
“Waste Management would provide only 23 percent of the service necessary at the county sites,” she said.
“I am concerned,” District 1 Supervisor and Board Chairwoman Carol Springer said time and again after WM representatives were unable to provide sufficient answers to her questions.
“This is more complicated than I originally thought,” District 3 Supervisor Chip Davis said.
After roughly an hour, the supervisors’ concerns turned into a unanimous vote in favor of starting the bidding process over.
Bourdon said the board’s vote to throw out all bids and start over was the right decision.
“We’re going to clarify the bid,” he said.
When let out for bids again next year, bidders will need to specify how many containers will be used to service the contract, the volume of the containers and the frequency with which the containers will be picked up, Bourdon said.
“We want to maintain the current level of service,” he said.
A WM spokesman said the company’s bid on the contract was not an attempt to put Sedona Recycles out of business, but part of a nationwide initiative to increase the amount of recyclable materials the company takes in.
“We don’t deal in predatory pricing,” WM spokesman Don Cassano said. “We want to do straight up bidding and we now have an opportunity to have more information to clarify our bid. The supervisors went the right
way.”
