pages: CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf, 24
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-05-04 | 24 | way or another; the magnitude of the decision is incredible; ACI, as well as any other waste organization, has an economic activity in the City of Alameda of roughly $23 million per year; in order to maintain the $23 million per year, Alameda residents must pay as rate- payers; the amount over 20 years is roughly $287 million to be given out on a non-compete sole source basis; expressed concern about extending the contract on a non-compete sole source basis; the information is not new; his views are the same from October 2020; however, is worth restating; outlined the presentation from a residential rate comparison; stated one would think there could be a reduction in the rate for residential 30 to 35 gallon bins over time; the rate increases slightly from the current average; the increase in rate and the magnitude of dollars says that Council needs to look at the contract from a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) basis; the reason the City contracts with ACI is based on a previous competitive basis in 2002; he was on Council when ACI was selected; ACI has provided good service; he appreciates the annual reports provided; there is an issue of the magnitude of the money being dealt with; data points suggesting there should be a decline in rates; when he looks back on the October 2020 meeting regarding ACI, the scoring done through the survey showed ACI with a B+ grade; outlined ACI's total satisfaction of 89% in the context of AMP whose total satisfaction is 96%; stated AMP's total satisfaction is the gold standard; Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) scored higher than ACI in satisfaction; total favorability for ACI scored at 83% and AMP scored 91%; reasonable rates for ACI scored 74% and AMP scored 82%; the survey shows scores that do not indicate A grade services; percentages showing an A grade might be considered for a non-compete sole source contract; he does not see the grounds for a sole source contract; utility business is tough; ACI has done a good job and provided incredible reports; questioned whether the City is getting the best dollar it can; stated the only way to know is to put out an RFP; ACI should lower rates; he is not convinced a case has been made for going forward on a non-compete sole source contract; expressed support for going out to bid; stated that he believes ACI would prove to be successful in an RFP process. (21-310) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda items and the two Council Referrals, after 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the Council Referral requesting a performance review [paragraph no. 21-315]. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. Mr. Hilton stated there have been recent competitive procurements in the Alameda County market to inform what might happen through the bid process; the processes resulted in 20 to 30% rate increases; when negotiating directly with ACI about large rate increases, staff expressed concern; the desire was to see how good of a deal could be provided for the City; in order to benchmark the deal, staff had to look at cost factors in other competitive deals; staff looked at hourly labor, fuel, maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A) expense percentages to ensure there were no charges for overhead; staff looked at profit and what is being paid for recycling, disposal and composting costs and benchmarked Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 May 4, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf |