Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 21,1995 37:0324 OliO . ",) II,.,). ., , : C( CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDlNGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21,1995 The Arcadia City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chambers. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Kuhn, Ulrich, Young, and Lojeski ABSENT: None 1. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMA nON FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS - REPORTS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS I 2, 3. Ot.')(1.,f,' /II"P I None. QUESTIONS FROM CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGARDING CLARlFICA nON OF AGENDA ITEMS None. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRFSS THE CITY COUNCIL Craig Freeman. 7000 Jurupa A venue, Riverside, stated in part that he is representing Newco Waste Systems. Newco would like to see Option No.3 taken. a negotiated extension of the City's contract with Newco. ,This in reference to the November 21. 1995 staff report. consideration of the City's residential refuse and recycling program and the RFP process. In a survey conducted by Newco of 286 Arcadia residents as to their satisfaction with the trash service, 76.U. of the people polled said they were happy with the service and did not want it changed. 19.7% responded that they were happy with their trash service but would suggest certain changes. Only 4.3% responded that they were not happy with their trash service and gave the reasons. Mr. Freeman stated that Newco is the only hauler that has access to industrial lubrication recycling. In Arcadia and other cities, many thousands of gallons of industrial lubricating oil are being disposed of at great cost and great liability. Newco's process will make possible the recycling of used oils to make them ,better than new. Newco is prepared to meet with the generators of industrial lubricants and tailor a program to their needs, analyzing samples of what they are producing and sending the samples to an outside laboratory for verification of contamination levels, all at no charge. Then through Newco's recycling process, the oil would be cleaned and reused, so that company would not have to buy new oil. 1 11/21/95 08 OZ(J .~(' II/.s ' 4. (J5 ,..) ~i .. t-() 37:0325 Jeff Gardner. representing Newco Waste Comp.J,y, stated in part that he would like to comment on the City's staff report. The ~taff report indicates that there I are three options &om which Council may choose. Option 2 is implementation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process with the bties of Bradbury, Duarte, and Monrovia, which Council decided in April 1995lnot to do. Mr. Gardner stated that the comments made by staff with regara to Option 3 are somewhat misleading. They seem to indicate that if a con~act extension were negotiated with Newco, the City would not have the ability to bring in new services or change current services. Mr. Gardner stated that that belief is not based on anything said by representatives of Newco Wast~. All new services or changes could be brought to the negotiating table, as I is currently being done with another city, and all services could be provide~ at a reasonable rate. For a number of reasons, it is to the advantage of the Gity to renegotiate with Newco: I it is less lime consuming; it is less costly; and any lime there is a change in the I contractor, there are some problems created when that change takes place. Newco Waste believes that they are providing th~ necessary services to Arcadia residents, as evidenced by its survey; that the se'rvices are and will continue to be provided at a reasonable rate; and that the: services which the City may require will be provided in a manner that the City will appreciate. Mr. Gardner noted that statements are being made by the CitY of Monrovia that Arcadia has already agreed to the mulb-city RFP; however,lhe does not believe this to be true. He urges the City to accept Option 3, renegotiation of Newco's contract. Tom Al!ajanian. 448 Grandview, Sierra Madre, a Lpresentabve of Newco Waste Systems, stated in part that he would like to resPond to the comment that staff would be at a disadvantage to negotiate new items into the contract with Newco because Newco is not competing with anyone f~r business. He believes that is unfair; Newco has never had the opportunity to discuss any of the new services which the City would like to add. They would like to do so, and then if the City wishes to go to an RFP there would still be lim~ to do so. Together with Best Disposal and its employees, Newco has served the City of Arcadia since 1960. and Mr. Agajanian has been in the refuse businesJ. since 1950 and knows what is out there. Newco is asking for the opportunity to have a discussion with staff about this issue. I I Terrv Dipple, of Calsian Disposal and Recycling, SOl North San Dimas Avenue. San Dimas, stated in part that there are other ~ple in the industry watching closely the Council's comiderations and decisiohs. There are companies with competitive prices, and his company would wie an opportunity to submit a proposal based on its qualifications. He hopes Council will consider that there may be another company which can meet the needs of the City at a lower cost, providing more resources and more services. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CITY'S RFSIDENTIAL REFUSE AND RECYCLING PROcRAM RELATIVE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF AN RFP PROCESS OR TIm RENEGOTIATION OF THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH NEWCO W A5TE SYSTEMS, INC. The "Exclusive Residential Refuse Agreement" Jlween the City of Arcadia and Newco Waste Systems, Inc., expires on June 30, 1996. Tltis Agreement provides for exclusive refuse collection. hauling, and disposal of refuse and recycling I &om all homes in the city once per week, and alSo provides for the collection of I refuse from City facilities free of charge. The Agreement with Newco has been in place since 1988, when it was taken over from Best Disposal. The City met I 2 11/21/95 37:0326 I with Newco representatives several months ago and advised them that staff would be giving Council alternatives for consideration as to how to obtain a new residential refuse contract. With regard to the option of a multi-city RFP, this is not the same Council which voted to hold off that discussion. and so in fairness to this Council it is being presented as an alternative. Since the City entered into the original contract with Newco in 1988, the refuse collection business has seen tremendous changes in technology and legislation, in particular, AB 939 and new recycling laws. Outlined in the staff report are 13 items, new issues which have come into play since the beginning of the contract. Some are being handled by Newco, others are not being addressed at all. The City Manager presented overhead projections illustrating the issues referred to in the staff report. He noted that some of the items currently being handled by Newco are: Christmas tree recycling, cleanup programs, and some AB 939 requirements are being met. Some things can be enhanced. For instance, many cities have a contract for commingled recycling, which is the combining of all recyclable materials into one container. In renegotiations with Newco or any other company in an RFP, the City will address these issues and any others needed to augment its contracts. Newco has been handling some items by means of a Letter of Agreement in a cooperative and positive manner. I Three alternatives were presented to Council this date. Option 1 would have the City proceed with an RFP (Request for Proposal) process on its own. This would allow competitive bidding from interested companies and would determine if the same or better level of service could be provided at the same or lower cost. It will take staff some time to negotiate and prepare the RFP. However, some cities charge each company a fee to submit an RFP, and this could be considered in order to make up some of staff's costs. Option 2 is the multi-city RFP process. This was considered in April 1995, and the Council at that time decided not to participate, based upon the timing and other reasons. The three other cities, Bradbury, Duarte, and Monrovia, are going forward with the process. The City of Arcadia is watching the process, but at this time is not part of it. Option 3 deals with negotiating a contract extension with Newco. The City Manager stated, in part, that part of the process of government is providing the best level of service at the lowest possible cost. Trash services are very competitive. It is possible that working with Newco may get the City more services at the same cost, but it will not be known if they will be better services unless other companies make proposals. The three alternatives have strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons. Staff cannot say which is better or worse, but IS of the opinion that going out for an RFP would at least test the market. Because this is a service contract and not a public works contract, the City is not bound to select the lowest bidder. The RFP will be structured so as to allow the award of contract to be based not just on the fee or on the cost of service, but upon performance, record, history, and other performance standards. Staff feels that testing the market could result in potentially better service and more services at the same Or better cost per unit. I Mayor Lojeski commented that he recalls, in 1982 or 1983, the City had basically a "handshake agreement" with a waste hauler who had come in and bailed out the previous disposal company, which could not pick up the trash due to equipment failures and other problems. An agreement was then signed with Best Disposal RFP's were solicited from other operators, and although Best Disposa.I was not the lowest bidder, Council took into consideration issues such as experience and longevity with the City, and determined that it was in the 3 11/21/95 37:0327 : City's best interest to stay with the same contractor. Mayor Lojeski asked, if Council were to participate in a multi-city RFP I process, how would the City protect itself from being subjected. rate-wise, to what the other cities were doing. The City Manager responded that the p~ocess would be that each oty would establish its own performance standards.j If the City of Arcadia wanted the 13-plus additional items as set forth in the November 21, 1995 staff report, that would become the City of Arcadia's portion 9f the multi-city proposal. The company would derive the benefit of having tJ'te volume of four cities, and potentially this would lower the rates for everyJx>dy. Hypothetically, all four cities could have different rate structures. 'The four cities are connected physically, so one company's equipment is mOYmg within that region. Even though there may be four different service levels, it can be done. It may be difficult, but it is not impossible. I Councilmember Ulrich asked what has happened to the multi-city process as far as the other cities are concerned. The City ~anagei stated that they are preparing an RFP. The cities are meeting tonight to discuss a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and when it is complete th~ RFQ will go out to 18 refuse haulers to submit their qualifications. When thatlis completed, they will issue a formal RFP to the successful refuse haulers. Councilmember Ulrich asked, since the City has not been involved in the negotiatiorls up to this point, would that be to the City's benefit or not. The City Manag~r stated that it hasn't hurt the City because they have not formalized the negotiating process. The City may still join them if it does so soon. Even though CoPncu tabled the multi-city RFP process, staff has followed its progress for Council's information, and the option is presented as an alternative. The City Manage,: noted that there is always the possibility that in the end the multi-city RFP proc.\ss may not work out. Council discussion ensued. Councilmember ~g asked what cost would be involved in the RFP process. The City Manager answered that, if the City proceeds with the RFP process, Option 1, an esliinated cost is $5,000 to $10,000 , for staff time to work on, process, and nego,tiate the RFP, plus the City Attorney's time. If the multi-city process is selected, Option 2, the payment for the RFP and the processing and staff time is ~aid for by the applicants. If Option 1 is selected, the City could choose to ask [the applicant to pay to submit a proposal in order to cover City costs. Councilmember Chang asked, if Council chose Option 2 and then found it ur1S8tisfactory J could the City get out of the multi-city contract. The City Attorney stated in Part that it can be done, but it would take a lot of work on the wording. The I goal of the City would be to terminate if the City's performance standards ~ere not being met. The City Manager added that, with either Option 1 or Opt!on 2, there would be an effort to include in the agreement that failure to perform to satisfaction would result in termination for costs. The City Attorney expllrined that there would have to be an adjustment factor if one of the cities droPpo!d out, because costs would be based on the contractor's serving all of the cities. I Council discussion continued. Mayor Pro tem Kuhn commented that, with regard to the multi-city option, it seems to her to create a monopoly, and also a lack of control by the City of Arcadia as far as expectations compared to the other cities. Things do change as you go along, 'and it seems that it would be difficult to work things out among four differentl cities. As far as the ability to drop out of the process, that is kind of like "~ntering a marriage with the attitude that we can always get a divorce" Sbf would prefer to see Council make a decision one way or the other. Mayor Lojeski stated he also has had concern of how to retain autonomy in the e,}ent of a multi-city contract, II 4 11/21/95 37:0328 : I especially with matters which are specific to the City of Arcadia and perhaps do not relate to the other oties, and also with regard to rates. Councilmember Young stated that, having been through this before, she leans towards Option 1, the City's own RFP process. Mayor Pro tem Kuhn agreed, because of the complications of a multi-city contract and also because the last time an RFP procedure was done was in 1988. Mayor Lojeski commented that it is fair to the taxpayers. It is a way of assuring that the City has retained the company with the best service, best rates, and the fewest complaints. Councilmember Chang stated that he favors Option 2; cost.wise, it is the most favorable. He believes that any concern over being locked into a contract could be worked out in the language of the document. This is a time when the City must be cost conscious, and a way to do that is to work with other cities. Newco is providing good service, and this can be kept in mind during this process. Councilmember Ulrich does not believe there is enough to gain by Option 2, and he prefers Option 1. As the City Manager mentioned, the City could be compensated by charging a reasonable fee to companies who submit an RFP. Mayor Lojeski commented that it is fair to the taxpayers to have an RFP process, whether it be Option 1 or Option 2. Although it is not known what a multi-city RFP process will bring, it does no harm to try it; the City could extract itseIf from the process if it gets too complicated. This is probably the way government will go in the future, with cities getting together in situations such as this. Mayor Lojeski stated he prefers Option 2. I Councilmember Young asked, if the City went with Option 2 and during the process decided to switch to Option 1, would it mean starting over? The City Manager stated no, not necessarily. A significant amount of work could probably be extracted from Option 2; and it would be known who were the best qualified companies. With regard to Option 2, the City Manager noted that there are a Councilmember and staff member from each of the three cities to help with policy direction throughout the conceptual stages during negotiations. If Council chooses Option 2, it must also choose one of its members to be a representative from the City of Arcadia. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DIRECT staff to proceed with Option No. 2, a multi-city RFP process with the cities of Bradbury, Duarte, and Monrovia; evaluate each of the submitted proposals; bring a recommendation and contract to the City Council for consideration; and designate one Councilmember to serve on the multi-city committee. I Councilmember Ulrich asked what the downside of Option 2 would be. The City Manager answered that the legal ir1Strument would be very time consuming, but hopefully a certain amount of costs will be recovered. It would also be a very complicated process to negotiate the final terms and conditions, with the four cities' attorneys spending a lot of time on language which will protect everybody. Those are the two most significant things he sees right now. It is difficult to project the downsides, except to say that the legal instrument is very complicated. The City Attorney added that the staff member who represents the City Manager's office will have to have a good feel for what the City of Arcadia's standards are. The City Manager commented that that is the reason for having a Councilmember along with the staff member, to create the balance of the technical portion with the policy maker's definition of level of service. 5 11/21/95 CLOSED SESSION o lid . 'I:) Ai r ,.' I'vj/ ,/ ADJOURN- MENT ATTEST: JI : UJL'1 : 10 response to Councilmember Ulrich's questioJ asking why the Council chose not to enter a multi-city RFP process in the past,: the City Manager stated that in April 1995 the City was still far away from Ithe time for contract renewal, Mayor Lojeski recalled that a year or two prior to that, the previous Counal discussed whether or not to go through the RFP process, but at that time decided to give an extension to Newco. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chang, Ulrich, and Lojeski Councilmembers Kuhn and Youhg None I It was MOVED by Mayor Lojeski, seconded by Councilmember Ulrich and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPOINT Councilmember Young to serve on the multi-city RFP committee com~d of the Cities of Arcadia, Bradbury, Duarte, and Monrovia. I AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Kuhn, Ulrich, Young, and Lojeski NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Attorney announced that under Government Code Section 54954.2, with Council's approval, there is need for a O~d Session to have a brief discussion regarding the Sully-Miller ContractiI}g Company litigation. The City was served with a lawsuit on Friday, the day after the agenda was prepared, , and so this Oased Session was ,not listed on thel agenda. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Kuhn, secorded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that there is a need for immediate action on this item in Oased Session tonight, td confer with legal counsel under Government Code Section 54952.9(a). I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chang, Kuhn) Ulrich, Young, and Lojeski None None At 6:35 p.m. Council entered the CLOSED SESSION, RECONVENED the Adjourned Regular meeting, and ADJOURNEI;> sine die at 6:50 p.m. ik d'Y ~~ J D. Alford, C Clerk \ 6 of the City of Arcadia I 11/21/95