Council happy with no-bid trash contract Around Town, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Jun 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Recology officials could breathe a sigh of relief Tuesday when the City Council supported the garbage contractor's proposals for a new contract instead of going to bid for the first time in over 80 years.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 1:57 PM
Posted by Zap, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Can you say "sweetheart deal"??? ... you tell the truth Viejo! ... why am I guessing that "campaign donations" either already HAVE been deposited or WILL be deposited into bank accounts of those board members who just decided that there is no damned good reason to actually put the contract out FOR BID???!!! ... this isn't San Francisco or Los Angeles, but CORRUPTION IS STILL CORRUPTION, even when it takes place in little Mountain View! ... SHAME ON YOU to the council members who just rubber-stamped Recology onto the new contract! And NOT ONLY IS THERE NO COMPETITION FOR THE CONTRACT, but Recology will ALSO RAISE COMMERCIAL RATES OVER 20 PERCENT!!! THAT is a pretty sweet deal.
Posted by BD, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Rates haven't been set by a competitive process in over 80 years (!), two other interested vendors made themselves known to the city council, and some customers will face up to a 20% rate hike next year. It sure seems short-sighted not to have hired the necessary help to take this out to a competitive bid.
Posted by Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 5:24 pm
I agree with BD. Competitive bidding is the best way to get the best contract. Yes, the in-house cost of processing a competitive acquisition is higher and more time-consuming but worth it to ensure the best contract--even if the best contract winds up costing as much as the proposed Recology contract and even if it is, in fact, with Recology.
It's just too risky to assume this sole-source contract is the best deal for Mountain View.
Posted by Greg David, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 10:11 pm
This all stinks to high H E Double Hockey Sticks.
I have a 600 square foot business that generates a LOT of recyclables in the form of packing materials, but very little actual garbage. Yet, I am FORCED by city policy to pay for a 33 gallon garbage can that I rarely fill. As a "commercial" account I am not eligible for the 16 gallon mini can. I have become disillusioned in regards to recycling since I can simply stuff my 33 gallon can with everything every week. Besides, even though I have been in business for nearly a year, I still haven't been able to get them to consistently pick up my recycling cans.
Don't even get me started on my $3 worth of water I pay for, with an associated $14 "meter charge" and $40 for sewer when the only thing going down my drain is the $3 worth of water......
Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 10:45 pm
What a crock. We get what we deserve though. We need to vote these jokers off the council.
I'm not even sure why the city is in the garbage/recycling business. I've lived in placed where it's all private. You pick the company and they come get your garbage. Or you could take it to the dump yourself if you were really cheap.
Posted by Ann Schneider, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jun 21, 2012 at 9:08 am
Very disappointed in all of you. You promised to finally go out to bid for what is the largest contract the City lets. And the system you approved is behind the times, the only good thing is if it is true that you aren't forcing single stream on us. (Mixing paper with cans/bottles contaminates paper and reduces markets for paper.) Your worse action was continuing bi-weekly collection of greenwaste when that is the service (with food) that should be weekly then allowing dry garbage to move to a bi-weekly collection.
All in all, all of you get an 'F' for this along with not living up to the promise to go out for competitive bid.
Posted by Antonio, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jun 21, 2012 at 9:10 am
Recology large trucks and careless drivers inflicts considerable damage to private properties. They take short cuts driving their heavy trucks over curbs causing the concrete to crumble they leak oil and other substances and cause the asphalt to deteriorate rapidly on private roads.
Is the city going to compensate property owners for the damages caused by their contractor?
Posted by Frank, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:50 am
Wow, City Council totally boffed this one in my opinion! Does this now set precedent for other companies to enter into no-bid contracts because they've DONE the job for so long? Hmm? If I were up for renegotiation, I would cite the Recology deal.
And didn't we just get notification that garbage and sewer rates are increasing July 1st?
Posted by Ann, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Historically garbage companies only served the town they were in. Of course over the years and especially over the last 2 decades there has been immense consolidation but even prior to that since historic garbage companies had one client, cities had to give the company 5, yes five, year notice that they were going to go out to bid for the garbage (and later in the late 1980s and 1990s for recycling and yardwaste). After years of pushing Mtn. View to go out to bid (think when Rosemary Stasek was on councill) we, the environmental community, finally convinced the city to tell Foothill Disposal (now renamed Recology)that the city was going to go out to bid. Now the City is reversing that decision.
Who knows what services we could get if the city allowed competition to allow increased services and any possible savings in collection or processing.
Posted by Recology driver, a resident of another community, on Jun 22, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Hey Antonio, you forgot to add that we run red lights, force bicyclists into bushes, eat our lunches while we text as we drive our trucks down your street and toss the wrappers out the window. What a drama queen! You've personally observed every single Recology driver, I assume. We drivers take pride in our work and strive to keep our customers happy as we are the ones that come face to face with many of you during our routes. Keeping a good driver/customer relationship makes our encounters with you, the public stress free and makes resolving any conflicts much easier. If you're any older than, say 15, you should know better than to throw out such broad generalizations like that. Don't forget, your streets also have UPS, FedEx, flower delivery, U.S. Postal among many other delivery vehicle that can inadvertently run over a curb or two from time to time.
Posted by DuJuan, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm
While I don't have a personal problem with Recology like Antonio (get him Recology Driver, lol), I agree with other respondents that a no-bid contract is not conducive to 'good government.' The City Council did not do "us" any favors by not bidding out this contract.
I don't know much about contracts, but does anyone know what type of bidding procedure is used? Is it lowest bidder, ALWAYS? Or best contract put forth? Do the companies bid anonymously? Why couldn't Recology "win" the bid straight up?
The Voice should investigate this for the citizens.
Posted by Ann, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2012 at 12:42 am
Generally governments are pressured to take the lowest bid but there is room to compare services offered and price. A bidder might cost more but provide a better range of services and be chosen. Other things that are or should be considered include the record of the bidding companies, i.e., safety record, missed pickups and other service delivery records, labor issues, and on and on. Zero waste services are very much contract driven and the bid specs themselves are quite detailed. I think it is the fact that it is a complicated and time consuming process that leads small cities like Mtn. View, and heck San Franicsco to continue to stay with sole sourcing services.
It takes pressure from the public to tell elected officials that competition is best for all of us.