220330 1540 Re_ Open Letter to the Cypress CouncilFrom:Thomas Moore
To:Frances Marquez
Subject:Re: Open Letter to the Cypress Council
Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:39:38 PM
Frances,
I don't believe I saw your response in today's New-Enterprise?
Also, I've asked both Peter Grant and Peat when the contract could have legally
been bid out and both have ignored the question. Can you find out when it was
possible, especially with the 4 year extension? And when does this contract
expire? 2034?!
Thanks,
Tom
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:41 PM Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org> wrote:
Mr. Moore,
Thank you for reaching out to me. I am responding in next week’s paper.
Sincerely,
Frances
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2022, at 12:52 PM, Thomas Moore <tomrmoore2@gmail.com>
wrote:
Frances,
I was hoping you are going to respond to the Open Letter in the News
Enterprise. I’m preparing another letter to the editor on transparency,
considering there has been no response from Pear. The optics would be better if
you respond publicly.
Tom
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM Thomas Moore
<tomrmoore2@gmail.com> wrote:Frances:
I don't know if you've read the current edition of the News-
Enterprise, but they published an open letter to you and Councilman
Peat concerning the extension of the sanitation contract. I'm hoping
you can give a comprehensive answer to the questions posed in a
Letter to the Editor of the News-Enterprise. Below is a copy.
Sincerely,
Tom Moore
An Open Letter to Council Members Peat and Marquez
I have been following the controversy regarding the
extension of the Valley Vista sanitation contract. Rather
than passing judgment at this juncture, it seems that there
are facts that can be brought to light by the most vociferous
advocate of the contract Mr. Peat and the the lone opponent
Ms. Peat. My neighbors and I have a number of questions
that haven't been adequately addressed. In the spirit of full
TRANSPARENCY, I’m hoping the two sides can answer them
in this public forum. (I will email you the questions so you are
aware.)
1. It has been stated that the contract couldn’t be BID OUT,
as the current contract hasn’t expired (It expires in 2024?).
When is the window that the contract could have been bid
out?
2. Considering accepted practice is that governmental
agencies bid out any work to be performed, why wasn’t the
contract bid out at the appropriate time? Despite having to
address the new organics recycling program in order to
comply with a new state law, it appears that a 32% rate
increase is steep and that competitive bidding in our
capitalistic system would have benefited Cypress residents?
We certainly wouldn’t have received a worse contract by
waiting.
3. Why wasn’t the company who provides sanitation for the
city of Los Alamitos, who will have an eight dollar ($8) a
month less in trash charges contacted, or was it? Sanitation
is not like construction, where quality is important, trash is
either picked up or not. It has been suggested that Los Al
has very high rates to commercial and multi-family customers
to subsidize single family residential rates. If so, are the
citizens of Cypress subsidizing commercial business in our
city?
4. If true, the most baffling/disturbing fact is the idea that
Ms. Marquez was prohibited from communicating with city
staff. Additionally, for full transparency and the fact that the
contract was signed, was there any information that wasn’t
allowed to flow among the council or to the public?
5. It appears that Cypress citizens had a deadline to protest
the contract and a date at a city council meeting to voice
opinions about the contract. Why was deadline and
opportunity proffered AFTER the contract has been signed?
It is apparent that the contract must be more complex than
originally presented, considering we are at a point that the
words “censure” and “transparency” are being spoken. I
guarantee the citizens are way less interested in political
infighting in their city government than having a fair and
comprehensive consideration of any money spent by the
city. I hope your answers will address the contract and not
devolve into further unseemly finger pointing.
Tom Moore
Cypress