220401 1748 Tom Moore Questions re_ Trash FranchiseFrom:Peter Grant
To:"Thomas Moore"
Cc:Frances Marquez; Jon Peat; Fred Galante
Subject:Tom Moore Questions re: Trash Franchise
Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 5:48:27 PM
Hi Tom,
As you’ll see I’ve copied Council Member Peat and the city attorney on this email as you’ve posed
this same question to them.
Let me start by saying I am disappointed you claim I have ignored your questions about the trash
franchise. This is the sixth time I have emailed you about the matter. It will be the last as it has been
decided by the City Council and you’ve misrepresented my responsiveness.
The answers to all your questions are included in the November 22, 2021 agenda report and the
franchise agreement and amendments. The 2014 franchise expired in June 30, 2025. In 2017 the
City Council extended the expiration to June 30, 2027. In 2021 the City Council extended the
expiration to June 30, 2037. Bidding a trash franchise is an enormously resource intensive process
and it is my experience that cities start working on a bid about two years before expiration.
However, franchises invariably run their full term unless they are sold or the hauler fails to perform.
VVS’s performance is well within the standards established in the franchise.
I appreciate you disagree with the City Council’s decision on the recent amendments to the trash
franchise. But the facts are that the city was transparent (the matter was discussed at nine different
City Council meetings); the organics recycling program and other amendments were reviewed by
independent, third-party industry experts who judged them reasonable; and trash fees in Cypress
are low (much lower than what I pay in another city).
Peter Grant
City Manager
City of Cypress
Office 714-229-6680
Cellular 714-335-1685
pgrant@cypressca.org
From: Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org>
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 16:12
To: Thomas Moore <tomrmoore2@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Grant <pgrant@cypressca.org>
Subject: Re: Open Letter to the Cypress Council
Mr. Moore,
I hope you are well today! I have copied our City Manager Peter Grant so he can follow up
with you regarding your questions.
Sincerely,
Frances
On Mar 30, 2022, at 3:38 PM, Thomas Moore <tomrmoore2@gmail.com> wrote:
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