Indian River County  
Administration Complex  
1801 27th Street, Building  
A
Indian River County Florida  
Vero Beach, Florida,  
32960-3388  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
www.indianriver.gov  
Board of County Commissioners  
Susan Adams, District 1, Chairman  
Joseph Flescher, District 2, Vice Chairman  
Joseph H. Earman, District 3  
Deryl Loar, District 4  
Laura Moss, District 5  
John A. Titkanich, Jr., County Administrator  
William K. DeBraal, County Attorney  
Ryan L. Butler, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller  
Wednesday, April 24, 2024  
4:00 PM  
Commission Chambers  
Special Call SWDD Meeting  
1. CALL TO ORDER  
5 -  
Present:  
Chairman Susan Adams  
Vice Chairman Joseph Flescher  
Commissioner Joe Earman  
Commissioner Laura Moss  
Commissioner Deryl Loar  
2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND MEMBERS OF  
THE ARMED FORCES  
2.B. INVOCATION  
Pastor Jeremy Rebman, First United Methodist Vero Church  
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
Commissioner Joseph H. Earman  
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / EMERGENCY ITEMS  
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Flescher, seconded by Commissioner  
Moss, to approve the Agenda as presented. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
5 -  
Aye:  
Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Flescher, Commissioner Earman, Commissioner  
Moss, and Commissioner Loar  
5. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT  
24-0371  
5.A.  
2nd Special Call Meeting - RFP#2024020 Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection  
Services  
Recommended Action:  
Upon public input and SWDD Board discussion, SWDD staff recommends the  
Board consider and approve the following: 1.  
Accept the final ranking of firms, as  
SWDD staff recommends Carted  
developed by the Selection Review Committee. 2.  
Yard Waste Services for Unincorporated Indian River County. Board Decision 1:  
Customer provided yard waste cans or Carted Yard Waste Services? 3.  
SWDD staff recommends Universal Collection for Unincorporated Indian River  
County. Board Decision 2: Subscription Service or Universal Collection?  
4. Authorization to the Negotiations Team to pursue simultaneous negotiations with  
the top two firms of FCC Environmental Services of Florida, Inc. and Waste  
Management, Inc. of Florida to obtain their “Best and Final Offer” for that option.  
5. Authorize negotiations with subsequently ranked firms, should negotiations with  
one or more of the two top ranked firms fail. Based on the final negotiations, staff will  
bring a recommendation of award and a final Franchise Agreement to the Board for  
execution at a future meeting.  
Attachments: Staff Report  
Final Ranking of Selection Review Committee  
Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, Himanshu Mehta, Managing Director of the Solid  
Waste Disposal District (SWDD), provided a recap of the Request for Proposal  
Process (RFP) for Collection Services and stated the purpose of the meeting was to  
obtain public input and for the SWDD Board to decide on the services to begin  
October 1, 2025. A copy of the presentation is on file in the Office of the Clerk to  
the Board.  
Mr. Mehta provided the final ranking of the firms by the Selection Committee for the  
service options indicating FCC Environmental Services Florida, LLC. (FCC) and  
Waste Management Inc. of Florida (WM) as the top two ranking firms for all service  
options. He stated the decisions before the Board was to accept the Selection  
Committee's proposal final ranking of the firms, make a decision on either customer  
provided yard waste cans or carted yard waste service, Subscription Service or  
Universal Collection, and authorization to the Negotiations Team to purse  
simultaneous negotiations with the top two firms of FCC and WM to obtain their  
"Best and Final Offer".  
Commissioner Loar referred to the RFP process and pointed out that it was clear  
FCC had the lowest cost, yet the top two firms were to go back and "sharpen their  
pencils" to get the best deal for the residents. He asked if the top two (2) vendors  
were aware that they would come back and renegotiate their numbers and why not  
renegotiate with all five firms. Bethany Jewell Gray, Consultant with Kessler  
Consulting, Inc., stated that the "Best and Final Offer" was a common tool utilized to  
get the best price and it was clearly stated in Addendum Nine (9) (addendum) when  
the updated procurement schedule was issued. Mr. Mehta explained aside from the  
price, the Selection Committee's decision was based on RFP evaluation criteria such  
as the number of trucks, staffing, participation in the County, challenges with  
sub-standard roads, what type of vehicles the vendor would use, type of fuel used for  
their trucks, the number of individuals in the call center, etc. Commissioner Loar  
reiterated his concern on what kind of message the County was sending to the vendor  
who had the lowest rate and yet was asked to "sharpen their pencil".  
County Administrator Titkanich stated he was made familiar with the process through  
Kessler Consulting and they had provided examples of other counties and  
municipalities who had gone through the process and utilized the tool the " Best and  
Final Offer". He referred to staff and asked specifically where in the addendum was  
the language the "Best and Final Offer".  
Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager, was not aware that the County had ever gone  
through an RFP process using the "Best and Final Offer" method of negotiation;  
however, it was not unheard of and a common practice both among counterparts in  
the State and nationally. She noted that this method of negotiation was considered a  
recommended best practice because it would enable the County to negotiate  
concurrently with both firms and ultimately arrive at the best product or service. She  
referred to the addendum and stated in terms of the schedule where it said timeline,  
one of the entries stated, "deadline for Best and Final Offer if requested". County  
Attorney DeBraal stated he had received confirmation from the consultant that this  
method of negotiation has been done frequently in other areas, it was something the  
haulers expected and were used to, and there had been no challenges to the bid in any  
other Florida area with this type of process. A discussion followed with  
Commissioner Loar stating his concern with the method of negotiation for the "Best  
and Final Offer" for a 10-year Franchise Agreement and only negotiating with the top  
two firms.  
Ms. Gray told of Sarasota County who recently used this method of negotiation and  
reiterated it was a common tool utilized to get the best and final price. She stated the  
RFP process was not just about price, but their qualifications. A discussion followed  
among the Board regarding the RFP process and Chairman Adams gave a synopsis  
of the discussions that had taken place and emphasized the method of negotiation was  
in place to get the best price for the residents. Attorney DeBraal mentioned the  
Selection Committee chose the proposal for a developed response by the bidders to  
see how many trucks or what type of equipment would the vendor use, instead of just  
a price.  
Mr. Mehta told how the Selection Committee arrived at their decision for the final  
ranking of firms. He stated there was great engagement between the Selection  
Committee and the vendors. They asked great questions and the Selection Committee  
provided responses, and in the process, they identified there was a schedule included  
which discussed the "Best and Final Offer"; there was an opportunity for the vendors  
to ask additional questions. He was confident in the RFP process that was followed  
and stated that it was done fairly and transparently. Mr. Mehta, in response to a  
question by Commissioner Earman, stated the vendors were provided a sample  
agreement which included any modifications made during the process.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Loar, seconded by Chairman Adams, to  
accept the final ranking of firms, as developed by the Selection Review  
Committee. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Aye:  
Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Flescher, Commissioner Earman, Commissioner  
Moss, and Commissioner Loar  
Mr. Mehta referred to the total annual price comparisons for residential, commercial,  
and supplemental services in his PowerPoint presentation and stated the top two firms  
were FCC and WM. He mentioned the only enhancement included in the RFP was a  
change to bulk pickup. He referred to Options 3 (Subscription Service) and 4  
(Universal Service) with carted yard waste and opined it would end up costing less  
than Options 1 (Subscription Service - Current System) and 2 (Universal Service -  
customer provided containers) because it would decrease the vendor's liability and  
increase efficiency.  
The Board sought and received information from Mr. Mehta about the City of West  
Melbourne's garbage collection program. He confirmed that under Options 1 and 2,  
residents would continue to use their own bins for yard waste, and the yard waste  
would be picked up manually. He continued under Options 3 and 4, each resident  
would receive a 96-gallon carted bin for yard waste and the option to exchange the  
cart for a smaller one free of charge. There was concern about no significant price  
reduction for the universal or subscription service with carted yard waste despite the  
expected decrease in worker's compensation claims for the vendor. Ms. Gray  
mentioned that the vendor would include the cost for bins and their  
maintenance/replacement in the service, as well as the option to exchange the cart for  
a smaller bin, and would provide a claw truck service that residents could request at  
an additional cost to pick up large piles of yard waste.  
Chairman Adams opened the floor for comments.  
Freddie Woolfork expressed concern that jobs would be eliminated if the County  
went to carted yard waste. Mr. Mehta replied one of the things the County has done  
was create positions through the local call center as well as additional routes would be  
created.  
John Genovese thanked the Board for taking the resident's interests at heart and  
stated he had been a long-time Board member in his community and was not aware of  
one problem that was not handled by WM.  
Jeff Bauer sought and received confirmation from Mr. Mehta that there were  
hurricane debris contracts in place in case of an emergency and added the County  
required a hurricane plan from the hauler annually that would provide additional  
services in case of a storm. Mr. Mehta, in response to Mr. Bauer's question  
concerning individuals with a medical necessity, stated Backdoor Service was in the  
current contract and in the RFP. All the individual would need to do was provide the  
hauler with a note from their doctor.  
Glen Powell thanked the staff and the Board for looking at the different options and  
the open forums. He felt the limited size and number of bins for yard waste would not  
work for those with large amounts of yard debris.  
Margo Sudnykovych sought and received clarification on the carted yard waste and  
hurricane debris pickup services.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Loar, seconded by Vice Chairman  
Flescher, to approve staff's recommendation for carted yard waste services in the  
unincorporated area of Indian River County. The motion carried by the following  
vote:  
4 -  
Aye:  
Nay:  
Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Flescher, Commissioner Earman, and  
Commissioner Loar  
1 - Commissioner Moss  
Mr. Mehta displayed a chart of the total annual price comparisons and monthly  
single-family rates focusing on Options 3 and 4, with carted yard waste. Chairman  
Adams indicated those who have subscription service should not compare their  
current garbage bill because the recycling price was included in the totals listed on the  
chart. Commissioner Earman received confirmation the recycling fee would be  
included on the individual's property tax bill.  
Commissioner Loar questioned WM's price reduction going from Option 3 to Option  
4. Mr. Mehta explained going from Subscription to Universal would eliminate the  
need for billing the customer. He provided an example of the Universal recycling  
billing where the County designated a fixed number of single-family and multi-family  
homes and every month, based on a certificate of occupancy report from the building  
department, the County either increased or decreased those numbers. Commissioner  
Loar pointed out there was not a large reduction by FCC and Chairman Adams felt it  
was because WM being the current hauler already had a baseline established.  
Vice Chairman Flescher stated he would be in support of Option 3 because of the  
high senior population on fixed incomes who did not generate a lot of trash.  
Mr. Mehta, in response to Chairman Adams, stated it was the Board's pleasure if  
they chose to postpone the decision and allow for negotiations with the top firms to  
see what prices they come up with for both Subscription and Universal Service.  
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Flescher for Option 3 Subscription Service  
with carted yard waste and Commissioner Earman seconded the motion for  
discussion.  
Commissioner Earman agreed with Vice Chairman Flescher and was in support of  
Option 3. He pointed out that 70% of the population in the unincorporated area of  
the County subscribed to curbside trash pickup and the other 30% did not generate a  
lot of trash and utilized the convenience centers, etc. He wondered after a couple of  
years in the contract, if the County could take another look and make a switch over to  
Universal Service. Mr. Mehta mentioned the County had been unsuccessful in getting  
the County's current hauler to switch over to Universal Service in the current  
agreement, but it could be something that could be negotiated in the future contract.  
He suggested the Board direct staff to negotiate with the top two firms on Options 3  
and 4, and giving the Board time to reconsider that decision and the ability for staff to  
come back with the "Best and Final Offer".  
Commissioner Moss was in support of Option 3 for those citizens on fixed incomes  
and seasonal residents who would not be able to opt out of Universal Service.  
Mr. Mehta clarified that if the Board chose to vote on Option 3 Subscription Service,  
then the decision would be for staff to negotiate with the top two firms for  
Subscription Service with carted yard waste service only. If the Board would like the  
"Best and Final Offer" for Options 3 and 4, there would need to be a different motion.  
Commissioner Loar remarked that 55% of the County's recycling was contaminated  
with garbage and reminded the Board that starting in October 2025, the new  
Franchise Agreement would be in effect for the next ten years. He felt the Board  
needed to look beyond next year, and what the County would look like in the future  
with the population growing, and illegal dumping. He completely disagreed with  
revisiting the agreement in a couple of years to look at Universal Service because it  
would affect how the vendors had made their bids and the process of adding the  
assessment to the tax bill. He was in support of Option 4 Universal Service.  
Chairman Adams was interested in getting the best price for the residents and agreed  
with Commissioner Loar's comments.  
County Attorney William DeBraal came forward and said it was the Board's last  
opportunity for the next 11 years to take a look at this issue and it would cost nothing  
for the Board to take a look at getting the best prices for Options 3 &4.  
A discussion followed with Mr. Mehta stating staff recommended Option 4 Universal  
Service to decrease the contamination of recycling bins and illegal dumping. He  
wanted the opportunity to bring back the negotiated prices from the haulers for  
Subscription and Universal Services.  
Chairman Adams stated there was a motion on the floor by Vice Chairman Flescher  
to move forward with negotiating on Option 3 Subscription carted yard waste service  
only.  
John Casagrande, Senior Vice of President of Business Development with Coastal  
Waste and Recycling of Florida, Inc. (CWR), spoke on the ranking of firms and  
recommended the Board get the "Best and Final Offer" from all five firms.  
Jim Harpring, Town Manager, Town of Indian River Shores, recommended the  
Board allow staff to negotiate prices for both Universal and Subscription Services.  
Joanne Stanley, Manager of Municipal Sales with Republic Services, Inc. (REP),  
concurred with Mr. Casagrande that during the RFP process it was believed that all  
of the firms would be given the opportunity to provide their "Best and Final Offer" at  
the table.  
Jeff Bauer opined the County should work with seasonal residents if the Board would  
happen to go with Universal Service.  
Margo Sudnykovych asked the Board to support Option 3 Subscription Service.  
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Flescher, seconded by Commissioner  
Earman, that the Solid Waste Disposal District move forward with negotiating on  
Option 3 Subscription service with carted yard waste service only. The motion  
failed by the following vote:  
2 - Vice Chairman Flescher, and Commissioner Earman  
Aye:  
Nay:  
3 - Chairman Adams, Commissioner Moss, and Commissioner Loar  
Commissioner Loar made a motion for Option 4 Universal Service with carted yard  
waste. The motion died for a lack of a second.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Moss, seconded by Chairman Adams, to  
obtain "Best and Final Offer" for both Option 3 (Subscription Service) and Option  
4 (Universal Service). The motion carried by the following vote:  
3 - Chairman Adams, Commissioner Earman, and Commissioner Moss  
2 - Vice Chairman Flescher, and Commissioner Loar  
Aye:  
Nay:  
Mr. Mehta confirmed the Board's final decision was to authorize the Negotiations  
Team to pursue simultaneous negotiations with the top two firms of FCC and WM to  
obtain their "Best and Final Offer" and authorization to negotiate with subsequently  
ranked firms, should negotiations with one or more of the two top-ranked firms fail.  
A discussion ensued on what was considered a failed negotiation with County  
Attorney DeBraal asking Mr. Mehta to display the final ranking of the top five firms  
and their evaluation points. Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager, in response to  
Attorney DeBraal, stated there was never a compilation of points. She explained the  
Selection Committee member's initial ranking of firms and offered to display a graph  
to show how the members calculated each firm's evaluation criteria.  
Mr. Metha displayed a chart listing a comparison of annual and monthly single-family  
prices for Options 3 and 4 from all five firms, with FCC and WM as the top-ranked  
firms.  
A discussion followed regarding the number of firms to negotiate for their "Best and  
Final Offer".  
A motion was made by Commissioner Earman for the Negotiations Team to negotiate  
with the top four firms FCC Environmental Services Florida, LLC., Waste  
Management, Inc., Coastal Waste and Recycling of Florida, Inc., and Republic  
Services of Florida for their "Best and Final Offer". The motion failed for a lack of a  
second.  
Mr. Mehta stated the reason staff recommended negotiating with the top two firms  
was not just about the price. Still, other factors dictated how the selection committee  
ranked the firms such as the type of fuel the hauler would be using, the capability to  
provide service to sub-standard roads, the number of trucks, call center, staffing, etc.  
The Chairman called for a recess at 6:35 p.m. and reconvened at 6:42 p.m. with all  
members present.  
Director of Utility Services Sean Lieske clarified that staff was not necessarily  
negotiating with the firms for the "Best and Final Offer", but a negotiated offer. He  
stated that it would be difficult to negotiate with all five firms and basically, it would be  
going back to rebidding. In response to a question by Commissioner Moss, Mr.  
Lieske and County Administrator Titkanich explained the Selection Committee's  
calculation of evaluation criteria and points, stating it was fair for all firms based on  
their price.  
Vice Chairman Flescher came forward and told of the difficulties the Board had  
coming to a decision and noted there was enough time to scrap the whole process  
and rebid Options 3 and 4.  
Commissioner Moss made a motion to negotiate with the top three firms FCC  
Environmental Services Florida, LLC., Waste Management, Inc., and Coastal Waste  
and Recycling of Florida, Inc. for their "Best and Final Offer". The motion failed for a  
lack of a second.  
Vice Chairman Flescher reiterated scrapping the whole process and rebid Options 3  
and 4. He felt the County would get better results on the pricing.  
Attorney DeBraal spoke up and stated there was no good legal reason submitted on  
the record from the last three meetings to bring the Board to the point of rejecting all  
of the proposals and rebid. He strongly recommended the Board not reject the  
proposals.  
Commissioner Moss made a motion to negotiate with the top three firms FCC  
Environmental Services Florida, LLC., Waste Management, Inc., and Coastal Waste  
and Recycling of Florida, Inc. for their "Best and Final Offer". Chairman Adams  
seconded the motion for discussion.  
Mr. Mehta clarified the top two firms for Options 3 and 4 were FCC and WM;  
however, CWR was ranked third for Option 3 and REP was ranked third for Option  
4.  
With a motion on the floor, Chairman Adams rescinded her second and asked if there  
was a second on the motion. The motion failed for a lack of a second.  
A discussion followed on negotiating with the top four ranked firms including  
Republic, with Attorney DeBraal stating the motion was made earlier and it failed.  
County Administrator Titkanich reiterated that staff recommended negotiating with the  
top two firms because of FCC Environmental Services Florida, LLC. and Waste  
Management's technical and financial ranking. Mr. Mehta added that in the staff's  
recommendation, the negotiations team would be allowed to negotiate with the third,  
fourth, and fifth-ranked firms if they could not come up with a solid price and  
contract.  
Commissioner Loar made a motion to authorize the Negotiations Team to pursue  
simultaneous negotiations with the top two firms of FCC Environmental Services  
Florida, LLC. and Waste Management, Inc. of Florida to obtain their "Best and Final  
Offer" and authorization to negotiate with subsequently ranked firms, should  
negotiations with one or more of the two top-ranked firms fail. Commissioner Moss  
seconded the motion.  
John Casagrande, CWR, believed that Mr. Mehta was incorrect, and stated CWR  
was ranked number 2 on Option 3 as displayed on the screen during the break.  
Purchasing Manager Jennifer Hyde clarified the rankings displayed were the initial  
rankings, not the final rankings.  
Charles Merkley, Director of Municipal Sales and Contracts with FCC, strongly  
supported staff's recommendation.  
A motion was made by Commissioner Loar, seconded by Commissioner Moss, to  
authorize the Negotiations Team to pursue simultaneous negotiations with the  
top two firms of FCC Environmental Services Florida LLC. and Waste  
Management, Inc. of Florida to obtain their "Best and Final Offer" on Options 3  
(Subscription Service) and 4 (Universal Service), and authorization to negotiate  
with subsequently ranked firms should negotiations with one or more of the two  
top ranked firms fail. The motion carried by the following vote:  
5 -  
Aye:  
Chairman Adams, Vice Chairman Flescher, Commissioner Earman, Commissioner  
Moss, and Commissioner Loar  
6. ADJOURNMENT  
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m.