http://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/news_n_events.asp
On Monday, November 30th at 7PM the City will be holding a public forum on Solid Waste (Garbage) and Recycling services as part of the process of considering the assignment of those services from Coastside Scavengers to Recology (formerly Norcal). The forum will be held in the City Council Chambers and include a brief presentation by Recology on services they intend to provide and examples of containers, educational materials and programs that Recology provides in other communities. The meeting will then be open for public input regarding garbage and recycling services and programs
Please note: The time for an Request For Proposal (FRP) process has past. The garbage assignment is with Recology. The question is one of services, and currently planned is one stop, 3 can pick-up: recycling, greenwaste, garbage.
Pricing and services competitive? Pacifica takes a higher franchise fee right off the top (gross). There is a senior rate, a small can rate, not much commercial development, hills, narrow and irregular streets, free services to non-profits, coastal trash pick-up, and high level customer service.
Submitted by: Kathy Meeh
43 comments:
Most people in town won't care about this as long as their service stays the same or improves, without an increase in rates. But I have a huge philosophical problem with awarding city contracts without an RPF.
The way the city's been run, as if it's the personal fief of council-members, is what many of us have been complaining about. Who's to say we couldn't have gotten a better deal if we let various garbage companies compete for the contract?
The city needs to very clearly explain why they decided to award the garbage contract to Recology without an RFP.
Back-room deals for local hippies - bad. Back-room deals for our friends - good.
I agree wholeheartedly that these kind of things should always go out to bid, and that council and staff should do their job and manage what is a fairly simple process without wasting $100K on consultants.
That said, I think their answer in this specific scenario will be that this had to be done to get Recology to agree to the deal, and if we wanted the money that Coastside owes us, we pretty much had to go along with it. If that's the case, it's a bad situation, but I can't think of a way to make it better.
I agree with you Scotty. Awarding the contract to Recology may have been the most practical solution to the problem of Coastside's missing payments. That's why I said the city needs to clearly explain why they gave the contract to Recology without an RFP. Right now, it looks like a back-room deal.
I'd also like to know why we couldn't have had an RFP where one of the requirements was to pay off the money Coastside owes the city.
I don't think classifying this as a "back door deal good for friends" is even remotely accurate.
The city had the option of spending $150,000 on an RFP (plus consulting costs) or make a deal with Recology. The city is going broke. They don't have the money for an RFP. This was a decision of necessity. And it does get the delinquent money from Coastside, but it bears repeating that the majority of this money is delinquent payments from customers.
And the city attorney effectively shut off the ability of the city to enact a lien on your house if you fail to pay Coastside after the Dave Carmany affair.
I have a huge philosophical problem with not issuing an RFP, but it got squelched by my huge practical problem of a broke city having to make broke city decisions.
1. There should be an RFP. Period. Competition almost always yields a positive result for the consumer.
2. An RFP should NOT cost $150,000.00 plus. If existing staff cannot handle this task, we should be outsourcing those positions. Regardless, this process should be pretty much boiler plate. Any logistical anomalies with respect to Pacifica, should be addressed by our City Attorney. This pattern of hiring outside consultants for big bucks just so City Council and City staff can avoid accountability (and work) has got to stop.
The time for the RFP has past, not that it wasn't an acceptable standard of doing business, but this is Pacifica-- it was more important to pay $100,000 for the San Pedro trail last December. Doesn't that make you feel better?
Citizens at the meeting tonight asked quite a few good questions, Bernie is always at the top of that list, and because of her experience with the County Barbara Arietta asked great questions.
It is good to see the entire trash collection process moving toward a higher level of recycling-- which is what Chris Porter at Coastside Scavenger had in mind last year. There will be 4 can sizes, most of us will probably use a 20, 32 or 64 gallon can size, one larger 76 I think. The can sizes conform to the automated pick-up system. The process will phase-in, which may take up to a few years. There will be 3 cans 1) for recycling, 2) green waste, 3) garbage. I'm looking forward to the 1 can for all recyclables, most everyone there seems to be waiting for the green waste can. There is some improvement in recycling low level plastic. The Coastside recycling yard will remain. Coastside employees will become Recology employees-- hurray for that!
The contract with the city is expected to be 7-10 years, and cost will be indexed based upon a variety of economic trend indicators, no increase this year, but whether that is until 6/2010 only was undefined.
There will be an emphasis on recycling education, even the new containers will have a visual embedding for their recycling usage.
Since Coastside Scavenger didn't have to compete to win and keep the city's garbage collection contract, they had no incentive to run their business competently and professionally.
Maybe if our current garbage collection service had been chosen on the basis of competition and an RFP, Pacifica would be dealing with a more competent company that wouldn't have defaulted in payments to the city in the first place.
Steve,
If you think you can do a better job of running the trash collection in Pacifica, you're always welcome to walk into their offices and apply for the position. Hell, I'll even give you a recommendation.
"The city had the option of spending $150,000 on an RFP (plus consulting costs) or make a deal with Recology. The city is going broke. They don't have the money for an RFP."
Jeff,
I spoke with someone with experience in RFP's and was told that the consultant cost is rolled into the cost for the winning bidder, NOT the city.
"The contract with the city is expected to be 7-10 years, and cost will be indexed based upon a variety of economic trend indicators, no increase this year, but whether that is until 6/2010 only was undefined."
Kathy,
If what you say is true, then the opportunity for a competitive bidding process is lost. The gouging of Pacifica's citizens will continue apace.
Jeff, how can Steve win the garbage concession when it was granted directly to Recology without going out to bid?
I'm just glad that someone is (hopefully) going to start paying for their contractual obligations instead of trying to blame the citizens of Pacifica. We're in enough financial trouble because of the council's stonewalling of development without having to carry deadbeat vendors as well.
Scotty,
Steve can apply for Chris Porter's job if he thinks he can do it better. Coastside has some issues, I've never disagreed with that, but the problem expands beyond their capacity to manage or not manage. Trash removal has been very lucrative for the city with its partnership with Coastside, so we can't pile on Coastside with allegations of mismanagement. And the delinquencies only started when the economy collapsed.
While your assessment of Coastside as a deadbeat vendor may be technically accurate, all I was saying is that you have to include in that conversation the fact that the city attorney removed a tool from Coastside's ability to meet its obligations to the City of Pacifica. Coastside has a long list of deadbeat customers, and its business partner (the city) took away its ability to collect on those accounts.
The citizens elected this city leadership. If they continually vote against their own financial interests, then they share the blame, sorry. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve.
I spoke with someone with experience in RFP's and was told that the consultant cost is rolled into the cost for the winning bidder, NOT the city.
Lionel, thanks for that clarification. $150,000 was still deemed too much to spend right now, without the assurance of delivery of Coastside's delinquent payments.
Kathy,
If what you say is true, then the opportunity for a competitive bidding process is lost. The gouging of Pacifica's citizens will continue apace.
I think people really need to start looking at the nature of the relationship between Coastside and the City of Pacifica (especially the franchise agreement) and compare it to the relationship between other trash haulers in other cities. There's a reason the citizens of Pacifica get shafted on this, and it has little to do with Coastside.
City Council: Will you kiss me?
City Council: Will you kiss me?
I like to be kissed BEFORE SOMEONE DOES SEX TO ME!
Jeff, how can Steve take over the trash service when Recology was given a no-bid contract?
I'm just happy that someone is (hopefully) going to be paying their contractual obligations, rather than blaming their problems on the citizenry. Pacifica has enough financial problems dealing with the anti-development council without having to deal with deadbeat vendors as well.
Okay Mrs. Pacifica Truth Police, guess I'm somewhat in agreement with your concise analysis.
Closed-door deals from city hall, what else is new, Lionel? Highest "gross" franchise fee, no commercial base/business parks for a balanced city economy, we live in the out-back. Citizens who want a better city economy and services are welcome to "move out-of-town" as the Mayor said after Measure D. One way or another the least defensible target to pay city overhead are property owners-- and that has been the apparent (non-disclosed) economic plan of this 7 year city council all along.
Seemingly unlike Steve, I have a great deal of empathy for small businesses and the challenges to compete and deliver services, including Coastside Scavenger. The city created huge problems for Coastside in changing debt collection from City/County to Coastside. And, no surprise, as the result of "governmentese" thinking the outstanding property owner garbage collection debt is based upon a hypothetical "what should be collected" rather than upon actual collected monies from billed property owners.
How would you like to run your business that way, with an upside guarantee net profit of no more than 8%, and potential unlimited loss? Then, it didn't help the financial stability of Coastside or the citizens of this city that their "partner" city legal chose to attack them a few years back with the Picardo Ranch greenwaste dumping-- when that issues was being cooperatively settled over-the-table.
The city requires many "free" services, to non-profits, Coastal trash pick-up, low cost Senior and small can rates (which I think amounts to about 50% of pick-up). So, there you are, there many reasons the 32 size can cost is higher. My personal testament is that in living here 26 years my weekly trash has been picked-up perfectly without exception-- great track record from Coastside from my view, but then some of you know I have a sunny disposition.
Sorry for the repeat post... For some reason comments weren't updating in Firefox.
Jeff, I know that you've mentioned this "partnership" concept before, but it's unclear to me what this means. How is it different from other municipalities? Is there any chance that this part of the arrangement can be changed as part of the new agreement with Recology?
Kathy, I'm not sure I understand your points. I would love to run a business that was a guaranteed monopoly if that's what you're offering. Are you saying that these "free" services were not written into the franchise agreement and that Coastside didn't know about them when they originally bid? Are you saying that they should get a free pass on breaking the law?
I just assumed that our horrible rates were a result of council's typical incompetence. If there's something that we can do to change that without waiting another 7-10 years, I'd love to hear about it.
Jeff, I know that you've mentioned this "partnership" concept before, but it's unclear to me what this means. How is it different from other municipalities? Is there any chance that this part of the arrangement can be changed as part of the new agreement with Recology?
Kathy hit on most of the points of the "partnership", but other municipalities also handle billing and collections, allow for liens to collect delinquent payments, have more comprehensive revenue sharing agreements, and generally have a more cooperative relationship with their hauler (as opposed to spending $100,000+ of city money and $100,000+ of hauler money to "negotiate" an agreement).
I'm not sure what could be changed with Recology, but the city certainly enjoys all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of hauling your trash. Perhaps that is something Recology can negotiate, but then we'd probably see the city attorney hire an attorney to negotiate with them, and the vicious cycle continues . . .
Kathy - I run a small business, so your comment about my lack of empathy for small businesses is ignorant. I'm not going to cut a poorly run company slack just because they're small. If I've ever had a problem with customer satisfaction, I've never used an excuse like "Gee, I'm just a small businessman."
Are you able to get away with that excuse if you have a dissatisfied customer?
It's hypocritical for those who constantly harp about financially-damaging city policies to look the other way when it's their friends who benefit from those policies.
It's hypocritical for those who constantly harp about financially-damaging city policies to look the other way when it's their friends who benefit from those policies.
I don't think anyone has looked the other way, but to unilaterally condemn Coastside for this situation without consideration for all the factors the City of Pacifica helped to contribute to it is worse than ignorant, its deliberately obtuse.
Did these policies around billing, collections, etc. change from what was in the original franchise agreement? If so, it sounds like Coastside should have been the one doing the suing, and rightly so. If not, they shouldn't lay blame for their poor business practices on the residents.
I'm equiangular...not obtuse.
What I would miss most about Coastside is the warm greetings I receive each time I bring recyclables to the Palmetto yard. The love from the yardmaster and his flock is beyond words. I particularly love the warm hugs although they tend to get my clothes and person a bit sooty. It's just nice to know that should I need a friend, a loan, an organ or blood donation, or to just be surrounded by a bunch of friendly faces, that I always had a place to go. I just love those guys! Excuse me, I am tearing up...
Similar to Scotty I'm have problems with Foxfire and lost my prior text. Scotty I'm haven't seen the actual Coastside Scavenger contract, I understand these "free" or no charge services from prior known and learned information.
Jeff gave a an excellent supplemental follow-up further exposing the problem. My observation is that the city is the "resting partner" that does whatever it can to "eat" its "working partner". This targeted cannibalism seems to have systematically accelerated over the past 7 years (guess who again).
Steve I observe you are truly "equiangular", I suspect you may not have experienced a business "partner" like this one. From my view Coastside has provided a quality service to our citizens over multiple years. Because Recology is a large company business I suspect "Hit Me Again!" may not get that big hug eventually.
I love all the apologists for the failed business known as Coastside Scavenger.
Do you really think that if this business had been run correctly that such a lucrative contract would be defaulted on?
It's a freakin' monopoly contract that had no city oversight for eleven years and resulted in Pacificans (known as pigeons) paying the highest rates in San Mateo County.
I can't take ANY of your other allegations against the city seriously until you acknowledge that this situation needs serious examination.
Lionel, as usual, seems to have it right. It's hard to justify someone negotiating a contract and then complaining about its terms.
If any of you had ever had the "pleasure" of visiting the Coastside yard on Palmetto you would realize what a complete load of crap my previous post was. I have never met a bigger bunch of A-holes than the Coastsiders who run the yard. In fact, it feels more like the prison yard in Escape from Alcatraz. I particularly like it when they slam their gate closed on you as you attempt to enter the yard during their advertised hours of operation for no other reason, I suppose, than to piss you off.
Second only to this group of misfits and malcontents is the Coastside customer service rep. She's the one who hangs up on you when you phone in a complaint - like the several times the garbagemen left broken glass all over your driveway. Oh, how about dem garbagemen? Love how they hold discus competitions with the garbage can lids. The winner being the one who can land the lid the furthest possible distance from the originating garbage can. I'm still trying to figure out what has more garbage in it - their truck or my street after their appearance. Again, I'm tearing up...
Lucrative contract Lionel? Adverse collection conditions, city favors, legal cost run-up unnecessarily, about half the city on the lowest rate. Following the seemingly hostile relationship with city over the past few years, I suspect that Loui Picardo/Coastside is equally pleased to transition out.
Scotty, Coastside is a business that was run with conditions set, and oversight given by the partner, the city of Pacifica. Not a private business negotiation with no competition. Coastside has money tied-up in property and equipment, with the concerns of competition, service trend, additional RFP expense upon renewal as well. The city set-in the highest franchise fees based upon the gross estimated revenue, the city set the net 8% vendor highest revenue cap, etc.
"Hit Me Again" trash pick-up problems? Maybe I live in the right neighborhood, didn't happen here. Guess if you're expecting a big hug at the recycling yard the employees are busy, so you're out of luck.
Management by "the new guys"? The question about rates going down was addressed and countered by the Recology Rep as "rates will not increase this year... and are expected to be more stable"-- got that?
Kathy, you act as if someone forced Coastside into their arrangement at gunpoint.
Of course there were conditions set -- it's a government-allocated monopoly. Of course they have money tied up in property and equipment -- virtually every business does. Of course they have concerns about RFP expenses -- virtually every business does.
But concerns of competition?!?! Just about every business I know would love to only have concerns about competition once every decade or so.
Hit Me Again...You have got to be kidding me. I have been in this business for twenty-six years so if you are getting bad service everywhere you turn, I find that unbelievable. Your garbageman is bad, your recycling man is bad, the person on the telephone is bad, the recycling yard people are bad...What is the common denominater here? You guys are SO off base with your theories.....I would love to tell the true story but do not want it coming out in Maybury's column with Lionel's twist......Any one who knows me well knows the real story of about the last six years or so......Just to leave you with a story my late father told me that is as true today as it was 25 years ago.....If you think one person is an a-----e you are probably right, if you think everyone is an a-----e (or in this case everyone is mistreating you) then you are the a------.So Mr/Ms Hit Me Again, I have been at the same number for 26 years working about 12 hours a day so please contact me so your complaints can be resolved. I have been known to go to people's houses to see broken glass, left over trash, broken cans, missing recycling bins, ect. to try and resolve the problems. Can't do anything if I don't hear about it.
The other possibility, Ms. Porter, is that the corporate culture of Coastside is such that the entire company may indeed be a bunch of A-holes. Funny how I only have good things to say about BFI after being a customer of theirs for many years.
Your accusatory response shows me an attitude of denial versus one seeking impovement. Everything is true and I stand by it. My calls to customer service were handled by a woman, but she was not you. She didn't inform me that I had to ask for you personally in order to get satisfaction/resolution. I guess Coastside neglected to send me the rulebook. If you think my experience at your yard was an anomaly, you must not read the Trib.
Some things about the discussion on this blog are good fun.
Such as allegations that the failed company known as Coastside Scavenger should have ANY of their ideas and/or opinions taken seriously.
We need an RFP process to protect the ratepayers from the good-ol'-boys garbage that has gone on for freakin' ever in this town.
Count on it.
Thanks for the info so I will know not take any of the information on this blog seriously. Regarding BFI, they lost all their contracts in San Mateo County due to their poor customer service so I guess you were the exception, Ms/Mr hit me again. Since I am here everyday, must be an A-HOLE and make it a point to answer at least twenty phone calls a day to know what is going on in our diverse communities, what do I know.
Ms. Porter:
When was the last time Coastside Scavenger sent out a customer survey? You people don't even give the illusion of giving a damn...
I received far superior service from Sunset Scavenger in SF than I do from Coastside!
Chris Porter said:
"...I will know [SIC] not take any of the information on this blog seriously"
That's pretty much what your customer service person told me.
Contrary to Lionel's comment I think Coastside has been a successful business for 50 years in this city-- that's why they've continued. And the reason their operation and customer service has run well over the past 26 years is because Chris has been there for the most part 12 hours per day, thanks Chris!
"Pen names", you are pretty aggressive with words, but you could not figure-out if the first-line of customer service doesn't work ask for the boss, really? And, was the broken glass incident really is a repeated pattern, or just a 1x event you couldn't get over? Maybe tune-in Dr. Phil.
Personally I hate to see this city lose quality small businesses, in favor of the big company vendor, but so be it. Fortunately Chris and her staff will continue, which should keep service and good customer service stable.
Want a customer service survey? Something like the AT&T customer survey when you call-in? Think they really "give a damn"?
Cost? City takes 11-14% off the top (before business expenses such as maintenance, payroll, trucks, gas etc are paid, plus there are a bunch of built-in reduced or no charge deals for the community); and, this same partner (city) does little to no work-- think your rates are going down? Think again.
Lionel,
I appreciate your comments. But if you think an RFP process will protect the ratepayers of Pacifica from the "good ole boys garbage", then maybe you don't understand the trash hauling business in San Mateo County. LOL.
Another thing to consider is why the City Council is so adamant to accept this deal? It's probably not about protecting the citizens' pocketbooks (as evidenced by their mishandling of the Sewer Enterprise).
Perhaps it has more to do with political desperation. Pacifica is running out of money. The city probably can't afford an RFP, but a quick deal with Recology that recoups the delinquent payments from Coastside also keeps them from running out of money during an election year. Think about it, because I know you went to some of the budget meetings with me and saw those projections. Running out of money by June 2010 might get some people riled up enough to vote against the incumbents.
On second thought, I favor the RFP!
I do think Coastside has provided me and my family with exemplary service while we lived in Pacifica. They were always quick to respond to my concerns, and I'm a big fan of Ron.
I haven't experienced any customer service issues with Coastside for awhile, but five or six years ago I had a problem with being double billed. Over the course of two weeks, I probably called Coastside half a dozen times during business hours, and NEVER got a hold of a real person. I always had to leave a message. There was no email address listed on the Coastside website, either. It was only after the fourth or fifth message that I got a response acknowledging my calls, but I wasn't home so I missed the call.
I tried calling a couple more times, and then just gave up and ignored the double-billing. After about 4 months, I stopped receiving the extra invoice, so the problem went away.
If this was just me, I'd figure it was a one-off problem, but I remember someone mentioning they had the same problem with double-billing in a P4P meeting. (I can't remember who it was.)
There was another time when I lost the card that showed when greenwaste was going to be picked up. Again, over the period of several days, I called Coastside a few times during business hours, but always had to leave a message. I remember Chris eventually calling up and asking for my address, but it took about a month from the time I first called until the time I finally got a new card showing when my greenwaste would be picked up.
I also think the hours for the recycling yard are very inconvenient and it should be open on Sunday when people are actually home (close it on a Tuesday or Thursday,) but I have nothing bad to say about the guys working there.
Coastside runs their office with three people so if you everyone is on the phone, you need to leave a message with your name and number. Not that you did this Steve but you would be amazed at how many people never leave a phone number or address. About seven years ago we had a computer problem that double billed for one month fifty percent of our customers. All customers were credited and the problem went away. It took about thirty days to be reversed once we were able to isolate why the problem happened in the first place. We keep the recycling yard open during daylight savings time on Wednesday nights until 6pm. Staying open on Sunday would cost us triple time under Union rules. I will pass on the good words for the recycling yard men.
Thanks for the response Chris. My frustration was that I couldn't get a hold of anyone during business hours, though again, this was years ago.
I didn't know it would cost so much to open the recycling yard on Sunday. A union requirement for triple time on Sunday is absurd, and doesn't make the union look good.
Right, stuff happens in business sometimes that is outside the control of vendors, even very large companies. Coming in to my small office, I've had fax looping, computer message looping, tons of unwanted fax, phone, and e-mail advertising, etc., big companies from time-to-time with no phone service, etc. Also, most of us are off work two days per week (or at least that the theory), so having the yard open on Saturday is a good thing for those who use it (personally I've never had a need to).
I don't know that the billing problems were outside of Coastside's control, but even if they were, the issue I was complaining about was more about not being able to get a hold of anyone in the office during business hours.
I often do yard work on Sunday, and when I fill my greenwaste cans, I'd love to be able to immediately bring the greenwaste to the recycling yard so I can go back home and do more yard work. As it stands now, once I fill up the cans, I have to stop. I'd rather not wait until the next Saturday, and if you don't have the card showing if it's the week greenwaste can be put out on the curb during weekly pickup, you're left wondering it you should drag it out to the curb along with the rest of the garbage.
That right, in office problem shouldn't happened, even a message on the voice mail would have been helpful. From what the Recology Rep advised at the the Monday meeting your greenwaste problem may get solved curbside with the trash, can #3, you'll need a bigger one it seems. The new system is going to be phased in, lots of interest in phasing-in greenwaste early-- don't know if that will happen, if Chris sees this she may have a better idea about this or not.
Greenwaste, recycling and garbage toters will all be passed out at the same time. Literature will most probably begin to be sent out in late winter giving customers the choice of what size can they will need (20,32,64 or 96). Recycling can will most probably be 64 and greenwaste 96. A promise was made at the meeting to phase in food waste to the greenwaste within I think 1 year. Don't forget that during daylight savings time the yard is open until 6pmon Wednesday nites.
Post a Comment