Posted: 02/09/2010 07:47:02 PM
PST
Updated: 02/09/2010
08:06:33 PM PST
PACIFICA — The City Council unanimously approved a
no-bid contract with Recology Monday night that cleared the way for the
trash hauler to purchase Coastside Scavenger and its sister company, Seacoast
Disposal.
The agreement stems from a deal that Recology, formerly known as
Nor-Cal Waste Systems, made with Coastside Scavenger several months ago
to take over the financially imperiled local waste and recycling service
provider and pay off all its debts to the city of Pacifica, amounting to
$842,630. Recology offered the city an additional "assignment fee" of
$100,000 in exchange for approval of the arrangement.
In return, Recology got an extended eight-year no-bid contract in
Pacifica and a likely 5 percent rate increase in August 2010. In
November 2010, the contract allows Recology to submit a request to
increase rates again between 4 and 8 percent, to take effect in March
2011. Pacifica's waste
service rates are already among the highest in the Bay Area, a
fact that was noted by a few locals who spoke out against the deal.
"The real purpose of this contract is to provide a cash cow for the
city of Pacifica," said Lionel Emde. "The council members appear to be
so desperate for revenue that they have decided that the ends justify the
means. This was not a democratic process in any sense of the
word."
Other Pacificans endorsed the agreement in light of the new
collection services Recology will provide as of Aug. 1, including
single-stream recycling and compost collection. Recology will provide
new, larger-wheeled carts for recycling but will pick up every two weeks
instead of once a week. Recology officials will also keep Coastside
Scavenger's management team and pledged to retain as many current
employees as they can.
City Council
members said they understood residents' concerns about the lack
of a request for proposals that could have allowed competitive bidding,
especially in light of likely rate increases.
Councilman Jim Vreeland portrayed the deal as a win-win. He noted
that, according to a city consultant hired to analyze the Recology
agreement, a request for proposals could have cost the city "hundreds of
thousands" of dollars. Going through that process would also have
involved keeping Coastside Scavenger on board until the company's
contract expired in 2012, potentially adding to the significant debt it
owes the city — without any guarantee of having it paid back.
"My understanding is it would have cost the city more, and the city
would have been in jeopardy of losing the $800,000," said Vreeland.
The city's hands were tied to a certain extent, because of a clause
in its current contract with Coastside Scavenger that the city could
not "unreasonably withhold approval" of the transfer if Recology
fulfilled a list of obligations.
City Council members also questioned Recology officials about
whether the 5 percent rate increase scheduled for August would be
negotiable; city documents portray it as inevitable. Recology officials
said the rate increase would be open to discussion.
Coastside Scavenger and Seacoast Disposal are owned by Pacifica
resident Louis Picardo and have served the area for decades. Seacoast
Disposal handles trash hauling and recycling for parts of the Midcoast
area, including El Granada, Princeton-by-the-Sea, and the northern
portion of Half Moon Bay.
The Granada Sanitary
District approved a resolution last week to transfer its
franchise agreement from Seacoast Disposal to Recology but did not sign a
new contract with the company. Recology will serve the area under the
terms of the current franchise agreement, which expires in 2014. The
current rate structure applies until 2011, after which Recology will be
free to negotiate new rates, according to district Administrator Delia
Comito.
Submitted by Lionel Emde
45 comments:
ahhh so that's why Julie Lancelle didn't want Lionel's comments read to the public. Lionel, you need to learn how to get along with other people and stop being direct, honest, and insightful. Otherwise, you're just on the "fringe" . . . LOL.
Aside from being contractually bound to not unreasonably withhold approval, just imagine for a second that it was someone you liked saying this: "My understanding is it would have cost the city more, and the city would have been in jeopardy of losing the $800,000."
That's money already paid by Pacificans, now helping with the city's revenue in a deficit year.
If it was a council you liked, would you view this differently?
I like Mary Ann Nihart, so what is your point?
Actually that ISN'T money already paid by Pacificans. While there is plenty of criticism to go around, it has been detailed here that part of Coastside's cashflow issues were $500,000 in delinquent payments. And one tool the city used to use to aid Coastside in recouping this money (filing a lien against the homeowner) was removed by the City Attorney.
Tricky Dick Saunders shows that he has no understanding of public finances and economics in general. Where do you think the $800,000 plus is coming from, Trickster? It's coming by way of increased rates to the captive audience of Pacifica homeowners, business owners, landlords and, of course, ultimately it makes its way down to the lowly renter. In the end, the consumer always pays the freight. Why don't you know that Dicky?
Cause he is an alien.
The issue is not about "liking the city council". The city council has governed this city without promoting a viable economic plan for 8 years. Excellent Tribune My Turn article by Frank Villa this week, page 13A.
The city two-part hostile attack against Coastside worked, never mind what it cost their 48 year partner Coastside, and citizens of this city. Who's responsible: City council, and their legal city attorney and contracted attorney enforcers.
2-Part hostile attack: 1. Questionable greenwaste penalty, 2. Assured collection of delinquencies passed from city to Coastside along with cost to collect and no assurance of collecting. Plus, legal fees, inflationary expenses (gas, trucks, union wages) and no rate increase for 3 years.
Jeffrey, monies owed by the franchisee are clearly sourced through rates and other services like debris boxes. If the money is owed, it's because it was to be collected from the people receiving the services.
Anonymous, are you disagreeing with Jeffrey?
So, both of you, no comment on the city actually collecting the money? No thoughts on what it would be like had that quote come from Jeffrey had he been elected?
Kathy, was it good to get the money? That was my question. My suggestion of "just imagine for a second that it was someone you liked" was to try to get to whether anyone would agree that collecting was a good thing.
By the way, I'm no fan of the way the city handled its relationship with Coastside. I think it could have been handled much better than it was. I suppose it could well be that they had more pressing matters, I don't know. I look to city staff on that front, with the buck stopping at the city manager's desk.
"We'll pay you the money as long as you agree to let us jack the citizens with higher rates to get it back within the next 2 years."
Sounds like something my old uncle Phil would have done back in his "family" days.
How is the collection of the accounts receivable from Coastside a "bonus" we were owed that money to begin with.
The City should have sued Picardos ass off and foreclosed on the garbage co.
Then the City could sell @FMV.
Oh wait, nobody on the Council earns a legit paycheck from the private sector. I forgot, money grows on trees.
Sue DeRetard. What an effin POS.
For all of you to see what Ms. Lancelle went apes@@^ over at the public meeting:
Dear Kathy,
I would request that the following letter be read aloud into the public record during Agenda Item #9 regarding the transfer of contract from Coastside Scavenger to Recology. I thank you in advance for doing so:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear City Council Members,
Pacificans pay the highest rates for garbage collection in San Mateo County. The contract before you not only starts at those extremely high rates, it quickly escalates them.
People are taking pay cuts, they are losing their jobs and some are even losing their homes. You were elected to be the guardians of the public's fiduciary interests. Those interests are not served by this contract.
The public would be better served by a competitive bidding process by which rates could be lowered considerably. There are communities in San Mateo County who are getting all the things promised in this new contract for 40 to 50 percent less than our present rates. Why should we pay more?
Do the right thing, start over, and institute an Request For Proposal process in which the citizens of Pacifica will realize that you are truly on their side at the bargaining table.
Sincerely,
Lionel Emde
Thank God you don't believe in recalls, Lionel!
by the way Richard, if you go back on the blog and follow my comments about this process, I was initially luke warm about the RFP process. Listening to Lionel Emde and engaging in conversation actually swayed my opinion, and seeing the rate hikes built into the Recology deal really steams me.
Yes, the city is desperate for money. That desperation is the fault of City Council. Someone ran against me and won on a platform that we had a $7 million reserve and a healthy economy. The city's dire financial straits have been exposed and exacerbated by the global economic downturn, but there have been a few of us who have been clamoring about the state of the local economy for years.
The trump card argument used by Council and staff against performing a due diligence RFP has always been the cost - i.e., $150,000.00! This is because outside consultants are required to administer the process. There is NO WAY a competent City staff and City Attorney's office shouldn't be able to handle this pro forma process! Oops... I forgot. We don't do anything in Pacifica without hiring outside consultants. My bad...
Sandy, from a private sector, civilian perspective getting an idea of which local waste collection company might be best for the city and most competitive does seem like it could take: 4 hours quick view, 30-60 hours to detail: vs. $150,000.
It's worth repeating again and again:
No matter what the RFP costs, the winning bidder pays in a successful negotiation.
An RFP protects the ratepayers.
There was no interest or intent on the city council to protect the ratepayers.
I had hoped I was wrong about that.
When a winning bidder pays, what money do they pay with?
Money collected from rate payers.
One party in the contract called on the other to fulfill their obligations to assign the contract. Since an outstanding large six figure debt would be a good reason to withhold approval, they paid it, leaving little to serve as a reasonable basis for withholding approval. Failing to approve assignment of the contract would be a sure-fire way to wind up in court and lose. Worse, it'd be a great way to wind up with no trash collection.
So what really at issue is whether the additional elements added in to the agreement were worth it. Breaking the contract (which is what going out for bids would amount to) puts the whole community at risk. Even if you get a great bid, service doesn't start right away. There's the interim to consider, and if you tell your current provider that you're breaking the contract, I don't know why you'd expect them to roll even one more truck.
Coastside Scavenger broke the contract by not paying their fees to the city. The city had every right to send the new contract out for bid.
Absolutely. Now, were the city's hands clean? What's the smart move here? Go to court? Break the contract, and hope you find a new provider who can provide service right away at better terms?
Do you disagree that going out to bid might put collection at risk?
Do you disagree that going out to bid might put collection at risk?
Absolutely.
What's your thought on why Coastside would continue collecting garbage if the City deemed the contract void and went out to bid?
Did that possibility ever come up during any negotiations in Coastside's decades of history with Pacifica?
Did you consider that it gets colder from August to February, thereby debunking the myth of global warming?
Which possibility? Mere conflict? Breaking the contract? Going out for bids? Or cessation of services?
What are we Sicily? The threat of our garbage not getting picked up? Piling up in the streets?
Global warming?
Burn the frickin shit in the streets!!!!!!
Call their bluff is what I would of done.
I'm sorry Kathleen, I should have been more direct. To suppose that the garbage would not be collected is as intelligent as supposing that the earth is cooling because temperatures drop from August to February. anything is possible in the mind of Richard Saunders.
So you tell Coastside that you're done with them, that they violated the contract, and you're going to go out and get someone else to pick up the trash.
Is this just your idea of brinksmanship, with the idea being to scare them into writing an $800,000 check and slash their rates?
Brinksmanship carries risks. If Coastside sees the RFP go out and believes that the City isn't looking back, why would Coastside spend another penny to execute on a no-longer-in-force contract?
wow Richard that's a marvelous point. I wonder why that never came up in the last 6 months???
Do you know what transpired between city staff and Coastside over the last 6 months? Do tell.
So, you like the idea of telling Coastside (and Recology) off, terminating the contract, and going out for bids. Who are you going to send bids out to? Waste Management and who else?
So, you like the idea of telling Coastside (and Recology) off, terminating the contract, and going out for bids. Who are you going to send bids out to? Waste Management and who else?
I'll ask again, politely. Do you even understand the RFP process?
Yes.
If you're suggesting that it might happen in a different order than I listed above (going out for proposals, choosing a vendor, establishing a start date, then terminating the Coastside contract), my question to you anticipated that. If you were Coastside and you saw this happening, why wouldn't you just stop spending money picking up the trash?
So Richard, you don't seem to believe that free market competiton amongst vendors/businesses/corporations/garbage collection companies would yield a positive result for the end consumer. Could you please provide us with credible documentation which backs up this incredible notion?
Sandy, you're not talking about what I'm talking about.
Back to Jeffrey and others who want to say that the contract has been violated and should be terminated.
Two parties have a contract. One wants payment and some other performance items. The other wants assignment to a third party.
Your suggested approach is to go out for proposals. How do you see that proceeding?
I'm still hoping you'll offer a thought on why Coastside would keep picking up the trash in the knowledge that the contract is going to be terminated.
Don't see too many concerns in the City of Orange:
City of Orange changes garbage collector and the planet continues to spin...
I never said the contract should be terminated, but I wouldn't argue that the threat of trash not being collected was legitimate during an RFP process.
What are you talking about Richard? I'm awaiting your documentation. Also, the question has been asked before and you continue to evade the answer. What City do you reside in? Have you ever been a resident of the City of Pacifica? What is your agenda trolling a blog pertaining to city business that appears to be none of your business?
If you're suggesting that it might happen in a different order than I listed above (going out for proposals, choosing a vendor, establishing a start date, then terminating the Coastside contract), my question to you anticipated that. If you were Coastside and you saw this happening, why wouldn't you just stop spending money picking up the trash?
uhm because the city has a contingency if Coastside stops picking up the trash?
Sec. 6-5.108. - Refuse: Permits to collect and transport.
It shall be unlawful, except as otherwise provided in this section, for any person to collect, transport, or carry refuse over any street or public place in the City unless such person is an agent or employee of the City acting within the scope of his employment or has been awarded a contract by the City as scavenger. The City Manager, however, with the approval of the Council, may issue permits to transport or carry refuse over streets and public places of the City to the scavenger of any other City or public agency if the Council finds and determines that such permit is in the public interest and will not impair the contractual rights of the scavenger of the City. The City Manager, with the approval of the Council, may also issue permits to any person to collect, transport, or carry rubbish and waste matter, other than garbage, for purposes purely incidental to the conduct of any lawful business within the City, other than the business of collecting, transporting, or carrying refuse.
Typically an RFP goes out near the end of a contract's term, with the start date being immediately after the current contract expires.
You were saying an RFP should go out now, right? What did you have in mind for a start date? This was all in the context of Steve saying Coastside had violated the contract. Were you thinking of letting the current contract run to completion? or terminating it once the RFP process completed?
On the question of assignment, would you have denied the assignment?
Richard "never a resident of Pacifica" Saunders:
When the terms of a contract are violated there is a prescribed legal process available to those who seek performance from the offending party. It is called "mitigation of damages". Look it up and report back to us. Also, please answer the above questions which you continue to ignore. On second thought, just go away and annoy those in your own community with your pedantic questions.
Last post should be attributed to me.
Jeffrey, thanks for the section of code. That helps me better understand what you were thinking. So you'd see any emergency that might arise from a dispute with Coastside being handled with an emergency contract with some city or other commercial hauler?
Granted that could work, eventually. How quickly could an emergency arrangement be set up? There'd be some pretty big disruption while finding an organization with enough trucks and available staffing to take on all the routes, the extra tipping, additional truck maintenance, etc...
And absent a pre-arranged contract that could not be done in secret, there'd be no reason to think it'd be any cheaper than Coastside, nor that they'd be any good at having the routes nailed down right away.
Note, too, that the code refers to the "contractual rights of the scavenger of the City." Either the contract is still in force, in which case outsourcing to another hauler would impair those rights, or the contract is not in force, in which case Coastside would be free to do whatever they wanted, including no longer providing services to Pacifica.
None of this sounds like a good way to conduct business except as a last resort.
Last year the city was seriously considering an RFP for a new garbage collector. It never got so far that there was a definite plan, but it looked like the city was going to let the Coastside contract run to its completion date, which was a year or two away, and in the meantime let other providers bid on the next contract.
There would have been no interruption of service, and I seriously doubt Coastside would have been allowed to simply stop performing according to its current contract. The whole idea that Coastside would stop collecting garbage simply because a new contract went out to bid is ridiculous.
Steve, agreed, if the idea was to let the contract run to completion. What threw me was your comment about Coastside breaking the contract giving the City the right to go out for bids. If it's about bids for a starting time after the term ends, then Coastside's contract compliance might be a motivator, but wouldn't be necessary.
Trying to piece together the various comments, it seems then that the complaint is that the City agreed to the assignment of the contract to Recology and didn't also go out for bids for the end of the term. Is that about right?
The City essentially extended the contract term, agreed to an inflation-related increase at a fixed time, set a time for renegotiation of terms, and settled the issue of the outstanding $800,000.
If the City had simply agreed to contract assignment, they'd have gotten the money, without any understanding with Recology about future events other than the end of the contract term. They could then have done as some want, and sent out the RFP.
If those two scenarios are reasonably complete, the judgment call seems to comes down to one or the other.
Would other haulers bid against Recology once they became the incumbent?
this website/blog is absolutely ridiculous -- a forum for the pin-headed psusilaminous among us.
Post a Comment