Monday’s Cypress City Council Meeting a “doozy!”

(Cypress, CA, 4/29/2014)  The following was compiled and edited from e-mails from two of our readers, so it represents two perspectives.  You can add yours in a comment at the end.

The meeting last night was a doozy!! The trash item was on the consent calendar and pulled by Mayor Mills for discussion and a separate vote.

Every Councilmember and City Attorney Wynder had many comments about how they were not happy with the way the RFP was written:

  • C.M. Yaric spoke about the many charges and called them taxes.
  • C.M. Bailey was outraged because they were the lowest bid yet and were adding in additional charges that  were going to cost the city residents.
  • Mayor pro tem Johnson chimed in a little bit, but was not as vocal as the other two. He took a very large contribution from Republic for his campaign. Yaric also took campaign funds from Republic. I find this ironic as they were the ones who voted yes on this Consultant, Sloan Vasquez.
  • Mayor Mills and C.M. Narin Both came up with a couple of suggestions that they wanted to see in the RFP:

One was a one pass system so that they would not have so many trucks on the street. The consultant did not like that idea at all and said nobody in California uses it.

I guess he is unaware that the community of Rossmoor has a one pass system. You would think that a consultant for multiple cities would be aware of that.

The City Attorney spoke of the wear and tear on the streets by multiple trash trucks every week. Yaric said that Cypress streets are the best in Orange County, including Los Alamitos, which does have multiple trash trucks and the worst streets.

C.M. Narin wanted to make sure that e-waste was worked into the bid so that multiple times a year people could get rid of their electronic waste.

George Pardon was the only resident to get up and speak. During public comments at the beginning of the meeting, Pardon asked that the Council invite in a “Peer Review” of the RFP process to insure that things were being done properly & since we need a better handle on what is going on. No one on the dias responded to Pardon’s request.

Pardon was saying that we need one of the other Consultant companies to review what is going on in Cypress.

One of our resident/reporters spoke with Mr. Pardon after the meeting, and he said that the Council just ignored his request and his comments.

It seems that the CCC ignores a lot of comments from the Public and gets very defensive whenever a member of the Public is critical of the CCC or City Hall.

The most interesting thing I took away from this discussion of an RFP (Request for Proposal)  was why on earth was this a consent calendar item?   This is probably the most expensive contract the city will negotiate yet they didn’t even think to put it on as an item that the public could see. Thank goodness Mayor Mills pulled the item or it may not have seen the light of day.  Kudos to George Pardon who asked Mayor Mills to pull it.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if Republic/Consolidated gets the contract.

All the Council Members argued about what went on in the previous meetings which were done in the conference room, with no TV coverage, before the formal City Council meeting ever started.

All the discussions on the Trash Franchise so far have not been on camera. Why the lack of transparency by the Cypress City Council?

Why doesn’t the Council want the residents to see what they are in for? $$$$

Last year at a Cypress City Council meeting, on camera, City Attorney Wynder said to all of the Council Members that he advised that everything be done on camera in open meetings where everyone could attend or watch from home. When did the Cypress Council members stop listening to their City Attorney?

Council Member Bailey

One of the most ironic comments made at the meeting was from C.M. Bailey, during the discussion regarding too many trucks tearing up the streets.

Bailey asked if it was the trash trucks or the FedEx trucks that tear up the streets? Then he went on to comment that it is the FedEx trucks because everyone orders from Amazon now.

Well, Bailey weren’t you the one who was courting Prologis??? Who would have brought a trucking distribution center to Cypress. ??? Bailey never thinks before he speaks. That is the most ironic comment of the year so far for him, But the year is young.

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Monday’s Cypress City Council Meeting a “doozy!”

  1. JM Ivler says:

    Remember that in Los Alamitos one of the requirements was that the bidding companies had to include their financial reports.

    For the Consolidated Disposal LLC bid the financial report was not provided by the LLC that was making the bid, but by Republic Industries, Inc. Since the only thing we had on file was Republic Industries, Inc. claim that Consolidated Disposal LLC was a subsidiary, and Consolidated Disposal LLC provided no proof whatsoever that they were a subsidiary of Republic Industries, Inc. (ex: a list of all shareholders in Consolidated Disposal LLC and their shares), the bid from Consolidated Disposal was non-responsive and should have been tossed on on it’s face as a non-responsive bid.

    Sloan Vasquez decided that not only was the bid responsive, but that the financials from Republic Industries, Inc. was valid with absolutely no evidence provided that they were the majority shareholder or that Republic Industries, Inc, actually owned even one minimal share of Consolidated Disposal, LLC.

    When the railroad comes to town, facts don’t mater when all the players hands have been greased to make sure that the rails are nice and nothing can stop the train.

    Like I said, Consoldated is a done deal, this is just theater of the absurd.

  2. George Pardon says:

    I am very concerned that Cypress residents are being taken down the same path that Los Alamitos was taken by the same trash consultant. I have been concerned that certain members of the City Council voted to hire the trash consultant with the lowest point rating in the review process. During public comments on Monday, I suggested that they should hire one of the top two rated firms to do a peer review of the RFP as well as the upcoming evaluation process. My rationale was that since early on it was stated that Cypress doesn’t have the in-house expertise to develop an RFP for such a complex process, how do they now have the in-house expertise to review the RFP that has been developed. My suggestion was not considered and they proceeded with a discussion.

    In my opinion, there are some Council members that are more concerned about how this RFP and ultimate contract will impact the trash hauler rather than how it will impact the residents in our city. One could conclude this may have something to do with contributions accepted during the last election. One of the items that was included in the RFP was a proposal that would require the trash hauler to pay additional funds to the city due to the increased wear and tear on our residential streets since the RFP requests that the trash hauler provide three pick ups a week: one for trash, one for recycle, and one for green waste. This would mean that every residential street would have 3 trash truck trips each week. I know that some residents said they would like to have that service but I don’t think people were informed until the meeting on Monday that one trash truck trip is equal to 9,400 trips by a car on our roads. It was stated several times by Councilmember Yarc that we already have the best roads around which I read as implying a willingness to let them drop a notch. The concern was stated that this extra charge to the trash hauler would equate to higher rates to consumers. Reality is if the trash hauler doesn’t pay the extra charge then Cypress residents will either pay for the repair from existing General Fund money and forego other services or we will see a reduction in the quality of our roads. The Council concluded by amending the RFP to ask the bidders to tell us how much they would be willing to contribute to funding resulting from the added wear and tear on our roads. There’s some brilliant leadership. I have a “what if” scenario: If the trash hauler doesn’t provide the funds necessary to keep our roads at the current level of maintenance then why don’t we leave the current trash pick-up schedule the way it is? It would not only help our roads, it would also help the air quality. I know the consultant says the industry standard is to pick up all bins every week but it seems to me the impact on our roads and air quality isn’t worth it unless it’s a state law. I don’t understand why we even have to have the “green’ trash bin picked up every week. Most of the people I know that are participating in the pilot program do not have a lot in their bin on a weekly basis. While people say they have a lot of recycle, the option of having a second recycle bin at no cost is already available. It seems to me that trash picked up weekly with green and recycle every other week would be a practical alternative under any scenario. I know residents may say that they would like all bins picked up weekly but I have to wonder if residents want that more than nice streets or higher rates if the trash hauler gives the city more money to repair the roads. This says nothing about the safety issues or air quality impact of having 3 trash trucks running throughout our city every day of the week.

    If weekly pick-up for all bins is required by law, then Republic has been breaking the law for years. While that wouldn’t surprise me, why shouldn’t we consider an option if it is safer, more practical, and more cost effective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>