Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager to execute a contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, for providing as-needed tree trimming services on the same terms and conditions afforded to the City of Tustin, CA, in an annual amount of $2,135,000, and authorize a 25 percent contingency in the amount of $533,750, for a total annual amount not to exceed $2,668,750 for a period of two years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; authorize City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto; and Amend purchase order No. BPPW14000026 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., by adding $410,000 for a total amount not to exceed $505,000. (Citywide)
Thank you. Item 18 is a report from financial management with a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the award of a contract to West Coast Arborists for as needed tree trimming services in a not to exceed 2,000,680 $68,750 for a period of two years. Okay. Thank you. Mr. City Manager didn't make a report on this. Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Chase McDonnell is going to give us a quick report on this. Mr. Mayor, city council members, the staff is requesting that council consider a request to withdraw the first portion of this item to allow time for additional analysis based on new information that was received by staff. We would request approval of the second element in the amendment to the contract in order to in order for time sensitive work to be completed by the user departments. Staff anticipates being able to return with an updated request to council following the additional analysis. That concludes my report. Thank you. Can I get a motion back? Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Councilwoman Gonzales. I have a couple of questions that I just wanted to go over. Will this update include. Because I don't know if there's. A certain amount that we have to go out to RFP and why there was no bid in the first place. Can you answer that? Councilwoman, this contract was to be piggybacked off of the City of Tustin contract. So in a piggyback situation, the city relies on the competitive process of another municipal agency, and we step into the shoes of that competitive process. So Tustin had completed an RFP that we were going to be use as the basis for our pricing. West Coast Arborist was willing to acknowledge that pricing and share that pricing with the city of Long Beach. So why did we choose Tustin and what are the what are we paying per tree at this at this point? I don't know the answer to the second part of your question. The reason we chose Tustin at the time was that was a valid contract that had the longest length of time available. I'm still on it. Okay. So will the update include all that information or what will we get back when we have that? Sorry. The intention was to analyze the new information that was provided that we received last night and come back to council with a new recommendation. Okay. So it's just a new recommendation on a on a new service or a new contract or I'm sorry, or is it a recommendation to come back and go out to RFP again? We were going to analyze what was provided and then return to council with a recommendation. It could be to do the same piggyback. It could be to go to a new RFP or some other combination. We have not made that determination yet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I also have some questions about the you said the second part of the RFP. Currently, as it stands, you want to go ahead and proceed. That became sensitive stuff. Correct? Yes, sir. What is that and what's the cost? The second portion of the item reads Amend purchase order with West Coast price by 410,004 Mt. not to exceed 505. Some of that work includes time sensitive work by Parks Rec and Marine that for trees that will be subject to nesting requirements. And that work has to start on or about December 15th and conclude by January 15th. Okay. So there was a time sensitive issue from beginning when this went out to to bid, if you will, with the city as they went in to piggyback. We are correct. Councilmember, we did not bid this item. So again, when we relied on touchstones, we were attempting that. What I meant is that because of the time sensitivity of the issue, you went with Tustin as a piggyback contract. That was one of the considerations. Yes, sir. Okay. Well, you know, when I read all the other contracts out and I read where there's a bid put in place, or so aggregating goes through to the press telegram or some other advertising agency. And I think this does not happen here. I would I would not be supportive of this. I think we should put it out to bid. Okay. Thank you. And either. If that's if that's in the in the face of emotion, make that. Motion second. Okay. There's been a there's been a motion and he's saying now there is already a motion on the floor right now to to a to approve the recommendation as amended by staff. Sir, I'm actually running the meeting, so just relax. Thank you very much. So just say to the pro, the process is, is there was a motion on the floor that I believe was made about Councilwoman Pryce to accept the the the the motion as amended. Then now what we have just to make clear is Mr.. Your angle you would you want to get substitute motion. Okay, so there's a substitute motion that is on the floor. Someone seconded today didn't hear who it was, but Councilwoman Gonzalez and that would be to go through an RFP process for the motion, is that correct? Before we go any further, and I do have some speakers, I'd like the city attorneys to comment on this just to make sure that we're this is something that is optional for the council here at this point. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Yes. The the way I understand the substitute motion, I believe that Mr. Rangel said that they would approve the time sensitive nature on the additional money and then require the not approve the proposed piggyback contract, but to direct staff to go out to RFP with that portion of the agreement. If I understand that correctly. And the answer to your question, Mayor, is is is that allowed by the staff? Yes, I think the council has the authority to either approve or disapprove this contract and give further direction to staff at this time. Okay. And Mr. and Mr. West, I guess my question was more a question about I have no idea where the process on this is at at this point. So did you want to comment on that? Mr. WEST Yes, Mayor. Councilmembers One of the reasons we'll be doing this is because we are getting a better price. We've been directed by the council. Previous Council, of course, this might be a policy we might want to revisit is to go ahead and utilize bids, combine our resources with other entities to get better bids, to get cheaper prices for us that are out in the marketplace. That would include piggybacking, that would include working with the school district for stationary, for things like that. So this is something that we've been asked to do to get better pricing for the city of Long Beach. I do want to highlight that we do have some necessary work in the Tidelands area that may not be able to get done. If we have to go back to rebid this because of what Jason talked about, given the nature of the birds and trees and things like that. My question my question is this. So my interest is there's a motion, the subject motion to just essentially go up for RFP. Is it possible that by just going out to RFP that we would get a we would not get a bid as low as the one we could possibly get by going back out and doing this additional information and coming back, or is that not a possibility? Very possible. So I would just just mention and caution to the council, I think what staff is asking for is to come back with information. What you're going to bring back to council would be, I'm assuming could could be we want to go back to our RFP or it could be we want to go forward with our proposal or it could be a variety of options. Is that right? Yes, we could come back immediately. Honestly, we were fully prepared to go forward tonight to award the contract. However, we did get a protest last night and we wanted to do the protesting vendor, an opportunity to review his documents and all that. So we're just trying to be as transparent as possible and analyze this. We've worked with the city attorney. We certainly could have come forward and gone forward this, but we just didn't want to give an alternate vendor an opportunity to review his documents. And given what we received yesterday and I'm not saying that after review, that would change our opinion or alter it in any way. But we can come back very, very quickly with the information you're asking for. Okay. And so I just want to make that the council aware of that fact. So, you know, it's your call whether you want to go to an RFP or not, but just know that that's a possible consequence if you just don't wait for the information to come back. Councilwoman Price. It's my understanding that the first part of this item was withdrawn as the first order of business before we started talking about this. So the first item isn't even something that staff is asking for us to act on tonight. In fact, they withdrew it. The second part of it, it's my understanding that the second part is time is of a time sensitive nature because it's paying invoices for work that has already occurred during an interim purchase order. Is that correct? Yes. Jason, any other information for that? Correct. Councilmember City Manager There was there are some invoices that were incurred that we were looking to pay through this money. Additionally, Parks Rec and Marine, as I mentioned, has specific work scheduled that would be required notice scene as well as scheduling within the next 30 to 45 days. That must be completed due to the nesting issue. That's right. So if we don't do this work before the nesting season starts, then we can't do this work for some time until the nesting season is over because we don't want to harm the birds. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am, correct. Okay. So just to be clear, when when you took the first part of it off the table, the only remaining part for this agenda item was whether or not we pay the invoices that we've already incurred. The pay the invoices that we have incurred, as well as this additional work for Parks Rec and Marine, to be clear. Okay. Thank you. And I think Councilman Price, you're correct, but I think Mr. City attorney, the substitute, the maker of the subs who can still make that substitute regardless of it, because it's germane to the item, is that correct? Correct. And I understand the substitute motion includes that second portion and adds the direction to city council to go out to RFP with the first part that was withdrawn, not review the situation and come back with maybe a recommendation to piggyback or go to an RFP as I think staff originally described. Okay. So the substitute motion is to go out to an RFP on the first part and then go ahead and pay the bills on the second part. See no other council comment at this time on public. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right, Councilmember Austin. Just one quick question. How long would the RFP process take? Councilmember Probably we would estimate the RFP process. Between six weeks to. I mean, it could be it could be up to two. And a half months. Well, an RFP is a complex process sometimes. Understanding the complexity of the process. Would it be possible to expedite it? We can certainly work to make that timeline as short as possible. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to take public comment at this time. So if you remember the public wants to speak, please come forward and identify yourself. 3 minutes. Yes. My name is Gus Franklin, and I am the president of United Pacific Services. First of all, I was very surprised when I when I found out about this, the contract being piggyback on to the city of Tustin. And test them way out there in Orange County. The West Coast Company has four other cities that we bet against them that were just right here locally in the L.A. area and their average unit price on those contracts. Let's take La mirada, which is right next to the Long Beach. Was $44 per. Tree. On trimming the cost at the city of Tustin. The average cost is. $64 per trailer. West Coast is currently charging the city on their old contract $55 a tree for great trimming. It was Coles wanted to give the city a piggyback city, the one to take the city and one to bellow their charge to the city. $44 a tree for good trimming. Ah, the city of commerce. They're charging them $44 a tree trimming. We better get some. A couple of weeks ago. We bet against him in the city of Highland. They beat $44 to tree. We bet 43. 75 a tree. And the contract was. Awarded to us. We beat them by $0.25. We've been trimming the trees for the city of Long Beach since. 2001 for 13 years. And during the past 13 years, they let out the contract four times for three years, three years of each. And we were the low bidder. West Coast, bit higher than. Us. Last year. Our contract was extended for one year now. We were the company that. Did all the trees in Queensway Bay. And we trimmed all the palms on the Thailand. I came down here today to to request and. Ask the city to renew. Our contract expired in June of 2014. That was from the one year extension. Can the city renew our existing contract. For until a first, maybe 90 to 6 months until you let out a. New RFP? Remember, we've been trimming your trees in the Queens way. In the Tidelands and your parks for the past 13 years. And. I think myself that West Coast does this piggybacking on a lot of different contracts. We bet against them. They piggyback from one city? We were betting against them in a contract to San. Diego. And then they piggyback from from. The Sierras. Made it. At very high unit prices. Okay. Thank you, sir. I see my time's up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Jack Boring. I'm the vice president, general manager with United Pacific Services. And it was interesting. Your comment you made about the cheaper prices for trimming. That these trees that are that had to be done on a time sensitive timeline because we've been trimming those trees for the last 13 years at $25 apiece. And West Coast is priced under the proposed piggyback is $45 apiece for the same trees, 80% price increase. And the same. And Queensway Bay that we've been doing for 13 years has a budget for $75,000. For the last four years, we've been trimming all the trees in Queensway Bay for. 75,000 for. Four years. The West Coast, the proposed West Coast Prize, would double the budget cost for the Queensway Bay Area to 150,000 for the same trees that we've been doing for 13 years. So I don't understand what your cheaper price argument on that one. But anyway, that's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Honorable Members of City Council. My name is Angel James Otello, director for True Milan Company. We've been your contractor for the Parks and Rec for the last 3 to 4 years and we were also surprised when we read the agenda report trying to piggyback this contract. If you look at your staff report, you'll see that the rates for city testing are not included. I actually got a contract when the see test in city clerk and they gave me the prices that I proposed under this piggyback contract. If my company had an opportunity to bid this contract, we would instead of 64 or $50, whatever they're proposing, we would charge you $45, $47. And this is what you get when you go out to RFP. You get companies to compete for your business. There's at least 4 to 5 different companies that could do this work. We are also a contractor for City of Riverside who is comparable in size to the city of Long Beach instead of City of Tustin, ten square miles compared to 50 square miles. City of Tustin at 16,000 trees. Long Beach has more than 200,000 trees. So we were one of the contractors here, along with UPS and West Coast, was the contractor for the city, and that contract expired in June. What the second portion of this contract is asking is to take TLC out. Of the out of the. Program, take ups out of the program, and give all of that to West Coast arborist until the second portion, I believe, is in the best interests of the city to extend the current contract with TLC for the parks up W for the marina and the bay and West Coast are best for the city. Until an RFP process comes out, even if if we are offering the city of Long Beach four times out of the tree, that's a 25% decrease of the $2.6 million a year contract that West Coast is proposing. Since 80% of this money is going to come from the general fund, that's half a million dollars a year you can save. This contract is asking for a four year contract over $10.6 million contract. That would be maybe the largest contract in the city of Califor in the state of California. And I believe that the city of Long Beach will get the best possible rate if it puts that contract out to RFP. If you look around to your neighboring cities area, Signal Hill went out to RFP and they're paying $39. The Tree City of Bellflower and Lakewood both went out to RFP and they're paying 4490 a tree. We are a contractor here in the city of Long Beach. We are a certified minority owned business enterprise. And this piggyback option is eliminating minority firms from actually giving you guys a bid. I respectfully ask council to give us an opportunity to put this out, to bid. Let the private sector compete for your business. Thank you. Could we have another speaker? Okay, last speaker. Go ahead. Okay. Think. Think. Thank you. I'm Patrick Mahoney. From West. Coast Arborist. And I just want to. We've been working here in the city of Long Beach for the last 30 years. I think all of us have different contracts, but we're welcome the opportunity if you want to go back out for bid. There's all these different prices. Long Beach has a very mature, overly mature population of trees that really 44, 50, 39. It's hard to really compare the different prices. But we're happy to go compete on an RFP basis. They're talking about extending our current contract that we currently have, and we're happy to do that. And I'm here to answer any questions if you want, but thank you for the business you've given us. Thank you. With that and to go back to the council. Councilwoman Price. I'd like to ask city staff at this point if we were to not approve the second part of this item, the item that's before us in terms of the work that's already scheduled and the invoices that we've incurred, would that delay any existing projects or work in the city? And specifically any projects that were on a tight timeline on or anything like that. Thank you. Councilman, we. We would need some money for emergency removal of limbs that are down from storms. About 50,000 of that. About 240,000 for the palm trees and the tidelands area, because, as you know, the front will have a tendency to fall. So they would trim those palm trees. So again, needs to be done before January 15. We have a tight timeline for the nesting period, September 15 to January 15. If we don't get it done by January 15, we can't do it until next September 15. So that leaves the palm trees untrained, and it's an annual trimming process for the palm trees. Now, maybe I can ask for some clarification from the maker of the substitute motion councilman or Ranga. Were you thinking that we would not pay the outstanding for the outstanding projects that we've already contracted for and go out to RFP on the work that hasn't been done? Or were you thinking in terms of the first part of who we're going to enter into a contract with? Well, what I'm dealing with, my concern is the transparency of going out to a contract. It's the bidding process that is merited in such. Contract to get out there and we do it. I understand there's been a commitment made. I understand the city charter allows for us to do this, but I'm concerned that there wasn't enough transparency in putting out the bid and maybe the city staff to give us a clarification as to how this happens. But from what I can understand or see here is that under the piggybacking section 18 or two in the city charter, there's no information, there's no notice that this is even going to take place. It just sort of it's sort of done. For lack of a better word, better terms. And back in the back, in the back door, you know, in the kitchen sink. But I would I would like to have is an opportunity to have other agencies be able to bid for this. And any time that there is going to be a consideration about invoking City Charter Section 18 or two that we know about it. Nobody knew about it. It sort of surprised everybody and surprising me that we're dealing with this. It surprised the other vendors who are out there who didn't know who got wind of this sort of last minute. And it comes up to us at the last minute. So I think that in all fairness, for everybody to be equal on level ground, in terms to be competitive, to go ahead and do that, and we have commitments right now that we need to meet, let's meet them. But I think what we need to do is make sure that when we are awarded the more two or three year contract, that it's that it goes out to bid. And I and thank you for that clarification, and I don't disagree with you on any of that. My concern is for any projects that we've already committed to paying for or projects that they're waiting to be paid on that have been scheduled because those those palm trees, you know, when when they don't get trimmed, they're incredibly dangerous . We had one fall on a, you know, neighbors car recently in our community. And we need to yeah. So we need to make sure that that that trimming takes place. But I agree with you on the inclusiveness of the bid process and the transparency. I just want to make sure that your motion, you know, basically supports us moving forward and paying the bills for the expenses we've already incurred and paying the cost of anything that is in the process of being done and then making sure that we go through a transparent process, as you've indicated, in terms of who we're going to award the contract to, is that okay with you? Are we on the same page on the substitute? Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. So contracts are are protested all the time. And people come to the council, they protested the I think it was the library. This stuff happens and rarely am I ever compelled by someone who lost a bid because city staff typically has a methodology for why that subcontractor was selected. Tonight, there was a compelling argument that that process hasn't gone through, and that's the process that that is the process that we should all take pride in. And we should be able to say we do have a public process that does value minority owned businesses, women owned businesses, local businesses. And when we when we circumvent that process, we expose ourselves to. To a discussion that I really don't want to be a part of. So. So that said, I mean, I'm going to support I'm going to support the substitute motion and I really want a review. I think we should have a discussion at some point about this process. I've never heard of this piggybacking until tonight. Thank you. Next, we have Councilwoman Price. In terms of the substitute motion. And again, just to clarify it. Is the maker of that motion. Okay. With staff coming back to us next week on that part, one option and letting us know exactly what happened, how they came up with that recommendation and what the RFP timeline, if that's what we chose to do, would be to give them some time to come back to us on that first. They could do that. What we're looking for is a clarification and more transparency in regards to the process. It's all about the process. That's good. That's not going directly to RFP, though. That's different than the first time. So what I'm hearing then from what the substitute now is, is to have staff come back at the next council meeting and explain not. So you didn't accept that. Okay. So I want to make sure quickly different motions here and I want to just be very clear about what they are. Council to pay our bills and go up to our people per. Council. Council Councilmember, your rank is motion, as I had understood it prior to the question was to directly go to RFP on the first part and then to to pit to pay for the second piece. The original motion, which was I believe made by Councilman Price, is to also pay the bills section. But then on the first part, to give staff some additional time to come back and kind of walk the council through how they got to that process. And I believe to meet with the or have a discussion, at least with those that are have an issue with with the contract being awarded this way. Is that correct? Mr. West. Yes, we did. And again, we'd be comfortable with the substitute that gets the work done on the Tidelands. And again, I am hearing perhaps we do need a discussion with the new Council regarding the piggybacking policy as well. So that's separate. So there's two, there's two motions. So. Councilwoman Gonzales. I think my questions were answered about the piggyback because I want to get more familiar with it as well. So that's about it. Okay. Mongo. And then we're going to vote. So I'm going to be supporting the original motion, which I don't know if I was the second on it or not. Mostly because I want to follow through with the process as it was started so I can find out what happened before I make a vote to go out to bid. I want to have a full understanding because I don't think that we have all the information yet. And so I'd like to say that I'll be okay. So now we have the substitute motion, which is the Durango motion. Please cast your votes. Well. Motion fails. Four votes. Four votes? No. Now we have the original motion, which is to come back, have council come to have to come back. And the second part will be paid. The first part would come at the council members. Please cast your vote. Let me capture the no's on the previous vote. Please cast your vote. Please cast your votes. This is the original motion. Motion carries seven votes, one vote no. Okay. Can I also ask Mr. West, there's been enough discussion about this provision that I think it deserves a conversation either at the council or in the member for matters. I think clearly the council wants to talk about the process as far as moving forward itself. Mayor Councilman, I totally agree. And if we're going to continue to use that policy, I want to make sure it is supported by the Council. I also think it's important that this issue come back ASAP. So at the next council meeting, if we can please have this issue back on the council agenda. Sir. Okay. Next item. Item. Item 19 is a report from the Health and Human Services Department with the recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring a shelter crisis for the operation of a winter shelter from December 1st, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Inclusive and authorize the city manager to execute a lease and subleases for 12,000 square feet of rentable of industrial space