Paso Robles no-bid garbage contract seeks big hike

May 14, 2020

OPINION by DANIEL BLACKBURN

This coming Tuesday, Paso Robles City Council members will vote on a proposal to raise rates for waste disposal, and there is every indication the 30-plus percent increase will be authorized.

Ratepayers have been asked to express their dissent as required by Prop. 218; that means a signed letter from the ratepayer must be delivered by mail or by hand to City Hall. No emails are allowed. Fifty percent plus one of ratepayers must state their opposition in order to deny the hike. Telephone calls are cited, but not counted in the final tally. In short, the road to denial is paved with problems.

The proposed rate hike is based on the assertion of the hauler, Paso Robles Waste & Recycle, that the company lost around $15,000 last year on its recycling program.

Documents provided to the city by Paso Robles Waste & Recycle show the following annual company expenses:

— Automotive expenses, $300,000. Not trucks. Not truck maintenance. Automobiles.
— Bank charges, listed twice: $60,115, and $37,874.
— Profit sharing, $125,239. The company document noted elsewhere that the company does not offer any profit sharing compensation.
— Merit payment, $81,670.57.
— Advertising and promotion, $42,927.
— Officer wages, $268,055.
— Travel and entertainment, $22,591.

I asked Public Works Director Dick McKinley if he had ever questioned the contractor regarding any of these expenses. He responded that the information was provided by a third party’s rate study and audit, and “the city does not have records as to the details.”

These apparently reckless expenses prompted me to ask the city about another waste contract requirement that apparently has not been met — one that may have resulted in millions of dollars in lost revenue at the city-owned site: Section 7: Scope of Services PP (e) 4, requiring Paso Robles Waste & Recycle to dispose of any and all residual disposal at to the city-owned landfill. I asked if this requirement had been met. Again, no answer.

While this corporate largesse might bolster the argument against the need for any rate hike, the more striking element of the proposal is the five-year, no-bid, wink-and-nod contract extension.

The city’s contract with Paso Robles Waste & Recycle has never been put out to bid. The city’s own records show the last time the contract was awarded was 1993. No one at the city can remember if it had ever been done previously.

The current contract extends through 2022. A provision in the contract provides that an additional five years would be extended if Paso Robles Waste & Recycle put a green waste facility into operation by 2018. After several failed attempts to procure a deal with Paso Robles Landfill, a deal was struck at virtually the last minute with Buckeye Processing — a company with which Paso Robles Waste & Recycle had already been doing business, since 2013.

That apparently satisfied McKinley, who first told me there was no formal agreement between the two private companies, and that he had authorized the five-year extension during a phone call. Several days later, McKinley said he found the agreement, and sent a copy to me.

I asked McKinley why Buckeye apparently wasn’t adequate to satisfy the contract requirement prior to 2018, and then was. He has not responded.

The capital investment needed to provide this kind of service is substantial. That’s why long-term contracts in this business are commonplace. But a no-bid, evergreen, multi-million-dollar government contract is inappropriate on every level.

The five-year extension is worth about $33 million. This contract should be competitively bid prior to the questionable five-year extension. This process can be started in 2021, a year before the contract’s end date.

For more information, go to Play Fair Paso.

Daniel Blackburn is a co-founder of CalCoastNews and is retired.


Loading...

6
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
KAG2020

Recycling programs are bogus. All the stuff goes to the landfill anyway. I saw the recycle and garbage get picked up by the same truck once.


analyticone

I remember a few other contractors in the County who got 25-30 year contracts that were never put out to bid.

— John Wallace – 25+ years at the South SLO Sanitation District got charged with several felonies.

— Wallace’s crony-lawyer, Mike Seitz who was in lock-step with Wallace for almost as long, who swore there was “NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST” until Carl Knudson was hired to investigate and then for the first time Seitz felt there was a conflict of interest and resigned. — Ray Beiring, another complicit agency lawyer who oversaw the corrupt regime at the IWMA for over 20 years who felt mayhaps he should retire when Carl Knudson uncovered malfeasance.

— Paso City Council – you seem to have stayed above the fray – until now. Will you join the County Corruption Corps and go down with that ship, which is sinking fast, or will you do the honorable thing for the people who voted you into office, trusting you to look after their interests.


Jorge Estrada

The 218 vote is an additional expense and should it vote prevail they’ll borrow the needed money and go after the ratepayers again including interest. The 218 vote process is a con, only defuses opposition over time. Competitive bids are the only answer and they must be audited prior to submission to assure their legitimacy. In the end, the ratepayers will just have to accept the cost and or mandatory service if not already implemented.


mercut1469

Good piece, Mr. Blackburn. I just hope the citizens of Paso are smart enough to listen to your recommendations. I fear that will not be the case. Still, it is intolerable that any government taxes or fees are raised until this nation is free of the current health crisis. Goldman-Sachs estimates the economy will contract by almost 40% in the second quarter. This means a loss of approximately $2 trillion in wealth. Of course, we all know where that wealth comes from: middle and working class citizens who will then have to pony up an added 30% to have their garbage taken away. As I said, intolerable.


pasoparent5

Mr. Blackburn, thank you for all of your time & effort but sadly, Paso Roblans will probably have to suck it up and pay this upcoming garbage fee hike. It’s pretty much a done deal.


Sadly, Mayor Martin and the council almost always go along with the staff’s recommendations and advice. It’s almost like we elected puppets who are actually controlled & operated by the unelected staffers. It gets discouraging for a voter to even give a @(%$# anymore around Paso.


And remember that during this last city council meeting, Councilman Hamon suggested putting a TAX INCREASE measure on November’s ballot…and Councilman Strong strongly stated that NO CITY STAFFERS should be laid off… Talk about tone deaf politicians!


To heck with the private small businesses that are dying on the vine, having to lay off workers left and right… If you’re a public city worker in Paso, as of now–you have great job security! And if you work for Paso Robles Waste & Recycle, you’re fine too because you won’t have to worry about that pesky thing called competition!


IronHub

Is it corruption? Or collusion? Or simple convenience? A no-bid government contract of this size must be put out to bid. No exception.