(Feb. 18, 2014) -- LBREPORT.com has learned that the now-retired, former city management staffer handling the City of Long Beach's street sweeping operation, Jack Kittinger, is the co-author of an email sent to City Councilmembers urging them not to proceed on the basis asserted by current city management with a process that could lead to contracting out LB's street sweeping services.

LB's current city management has agendized an item seeking Council approval tonight (Feb. 18) to conduct a "meet and confer" process with the union now performing street sweeping work, based on management's conclusion that contracting out street sweeping would save $1.3 million in General Fund costs on an annualized basis, with overall City savings of about $864,000 (difference attributed to reallocating costs to other operations and funds.)

Mr. Kittinger was Bureau Manager-Waste Operations (included waste management and street sweeping divisions) and later served at the LB Water Dept. before retiring. We're told he agreed to help a current employee of the street sweeping bureau in composing a letter for City Council consideration (text below.)

The issue reaches the Council via a city management agendized item, accompanied by this explanatory memo citing city management's reasoning and asserted savings. In the memo, city management says Athens Services, based in the City of Industry. "has been providing street sweeping services for over 26 years and currently provides street sweeping services for 26 municipalities in Southern California, six of which they transitioned from a staff operation to contractor operation. Athens also provides residential refuse collection services to 21 municipalities. In total, the company employs more than 1,300 people in Southern California."

Under Fiscal Impact, city management's memo states:

[City management memo text] Contracting out sweeping and associated sweeping debris disposal to Athens will save the General Fund $1,309,760 on an annualized basis. This savings is based on the cost analysis by the Budget Office and the conclusion by Management Partners that the cost analysis compares the same service levels and suitable management oversight. There is no implementation or transition cost expected.

The $1,309,760 General Fund savings, based on FY13 actual costs, consists of the following: $987,196 in annual avoided costs from having to replace the aging street sweeping fleet and $322,564 in cash savings to the General Fund. The overall City savings is less, but substantial at $864,802, which does not include $445,958 in General Fund savings due to the reallocation of costs to other City operations and funds.

Additionally, there will be a one-time General/Fleet Fund savings $1,071,702 because the funds previously allocated for replacement of street sweeping and debris disposal vehicles will be available for reprogramming. The City will also receive one-time revenue of $700,000 from the sale of unneeded vehicles to the vendor for a total one-time savings of $1,771,000.

Below is the counter-point letter, co-written by Mr. Kittinger:

Mayor and City Council
14th Floor, City Hall
Long Beach, CA 90802

Re: Argument Against Contracting out Street Sweeping

Dear Mayor and City Council

My name is [blank left to insert name]. I am a current City employee with [blank left to insert number] years of service, my position is [blank left to fill in] in the Street Sweeping Division.

I am against contracting out street sweeping services as proposed, as are others here before you. Our comments concern the following documents currently in our possession:

• October 4, 2013 Request for Proposal to Contract out street sweeping services.
• January 28, 2014 Notice of Intent to Award, and
• February 18, 2014 City Manager Letter City Council of Recommendation to Proceed with process - with an attached Management Proposition "L" analysis letter of January 29, 2014.

With the current Mayor and City Council not being seated in 1897, they might benefit from a short historical background of the City's sanitary service, before reading further.

BACKGROUND - HISTORICAL ORGANIZATION OF CITY SANITARY SERVICES

As referenced in the subject RFP, Long Beach provides a full range of municipal services, among which is sanitation - ie., refuse collection, and integral street sweeping. This municipal service has been so organized, refuse collection and street sweeping as one, probably since the City was Incorporated in 1897. Our municipal sanitation service has a long and proud history - envied and noted in the industry especially, for its unmatched productivity, adaptation to improved methodologies, and an unbroken record of reliable longevity in service to the citizens of Long Beach - made possible in part or in whole by enterprise operations funding, and by citation revenue generation.

Today the street sweeping operation in particular, in terms of its magnitude or responsibilities, only partially referenced in the RFP (integral revenue producing parking enforcement was omitted.), Has an almost unique coordination of personnel and equipment, and resultant financial self - sustainability - is standout, perhaps without equal anywhere!

REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT OCTOBER 4, 2013 RFP

The subject RFP - Overview of Project - states in part - "The City's objective is to seek proposals that will result in the same (or an enhanced) level of street sweeping - services at a reduced cost."

This is exactly our objective, and in addition - to preserve the City's reduced disaster response capability. Initial study of the RFP has revealed a curious and flawed shortcoming in the entire lengthy process. From RFP development beginning in August, 2013 - to final proposal evaluation concluding on December 16, 2013, and followed by a notice of intent to award dated January 28, 2014, no knowledgeable, field experienced, hands - on street sweeping operations personnel were involved at all.

Due to lack of hands-on input, critical street sweeping performance related provisions will negatively impact the City RFP objective of same level of services.

Most importantly, is the provision to contract out street sweeping, while retaining City staffed parking enforcement, and at the same time having each unit operate on a separate radio- frequencies this system will not work. Both units must work as a team, very closely coordinated by constant back and forth radio communication, and both pursuing a common goal. A reading of the RFP may suggest to some that City staffed street sweepers can be replaced by contractor units, and City staffed parking enforcement results will remain the same. Communications hindrances, and lack of a common goal - a contractor sweeper operator is concerned with curb miles alone - not efficient parking enforcement, will result in poorer sweeping, and a significant decline in citation revenue. It is conservatively estimated that under lesser expected coordination, citation revenue will decline by at least 10 % per route affected - totaling approximately $800,000. per year.

The second significant RFP performance related provision that will also negatively impact the level of street sweeping services, is the vague and incomplete description of the sweeper type to be used by the contractor. For instance, the wordings include "Mechanical street sweepers", "Broom type sweepers (or equal..) (?) ", and "sweepers shall be top dump (or equal..) (?)". These descriptions do not limit use to the Elgin Pelican configuration that we currently use - a three wheel, rear wheel steering, controlled front height dump model that should be mandated for continued use.

The Elgin Pelican sweeper has been utilized as our fleet mainstay for over 30 years due to its superior sweeping ability - including maneuverability, safe operator visibility, and controlled front high dumping, etc., etc., This last unique feature permits an operator to roll the hopper open and down towards the ground - to accommodate manual loading of street debris - including disaster clearing materials, The Elgin Pelican can almost serve as a front end loader in emergencies.

In summary, from the information available to us thus far - the subject RFP, standing as a document by itself, is woefully inadequate in pursuing the objective level(s) of street sweeping service, and almost completely silent in considering offsetting revenues with respect to costs.

This document is also obviously noninclusive in nature, and to that extent, fatally flawed by the all too apparent absence of input by anyone with even rudimentary knowledge and experience in street sweeping operations. With all due respect, Honorable Mayor and City Council, this document is not worthy of your consideration.

REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT FEBRUARY 18, 2014 CITY MANAGER LETTER = TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE ATTACHED MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LETTER OF JANUARY 29, 2014 - RE. PROPOSITION L ANALYSIS

In reviewing the subject City Manager letter of recommendation, we discover on the first page under the heading of Overview of Services, a repeat of the same unworkable proposed system as is found in the RFP -- contracting out motor sweeper operators and leaving parking control checkers to work with contractor motor sweeper operators - on separate radio frequencies. The expected results in terms of declining citation revenues has already been discussed.

Then on page 3, under the Proposal Evaluation heading, we first find a five person interview panel - again, with no one having any actual street sweeping operations experience. Further into this heading, we recall that bidder proposal evaluation, originally bullet outlined in the RFP (No. 7.1, page 25) called for proposals to be consistently evaluated based on seven listed criterions. The City Manager heading concludes by noting unanimous selection of the preferred provider was based on the same criteria, with one notable exception - the bulleted "Conformance with the Terms of this RFP" criterion is omitted.

This Proposal Evaluation heading concludes by briefly noting proposed contractor sweeping services in other cities. None of the cities listed, or others known to be utilizing the proposed contractor sweeping service, are municipalities of similar size to Long Beach - A "preferable" proposal requirement from the RFP (No. 5.1, page 23)

In addition, information as to whether the contractor street sweeping is accomplished by means of mechanical, broom type, top dump street sweepers - with simultaneously accompanying, coordination with parking enforcement, is simply not addressed.

Given review of the RFP, and not in possession of a bidder proposal, there is doubt as to the thoroughness and depth of the preferred provider interview.

REGARDING COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS AND PROPOSITION "L" FINDING

Operating cost analysis figures are not in dispute regarding accuracy, even though contractor costs may have been generated with knowledge of disclosed City costs, and fleet services costs (maintenance- $1,122,689.) have long been a source of contention with user departments, yet they have not been analyzed.

Further, a redistribution of various overhead costs from the general purpose fund to other funds, is not a savings to the general City, and should not have been involved in comparing operating costs. ($444,958) What is in dispute is the anticipated "no impacts on citation revenue". Employees actually performing this work, and who know the work best, can testify why a substantial decline in such revenue will unavoidably occur - beyond the conservative 10% estimate. ($800,000 annually)

What is left, on balance, is no net annual cost savings at all by using contracted street sweeping. The only financial incentive apparent from this recommendation involves one time revenues, ie.,

• Sell off the fleet - which consists of the finest equipment available that is nearing replacement - at probably below trade in values ($700,000.) - and,

• Avoid utilizing accrued capital replacement funds - public money already accrued for replacing street sweeping equipment - and instead, make the money available for "reprogramming" elsewhere. ($1,071,702.)

The remaining information in this subject letter deals with after award issues, ie., Quality Assurance being dealt with by complex, burdensome reporting procedures, instead of direct, hands-on, in the field supervision.

As to the Proposition "L" analysis itself, and contrary to the firm's findings - hired incidentally, by the City Manager's Office, neither required finding appears, to support the authorizing of contracting out street sweeping services.

Finding No. 1 - RE. efficiency, effectiveness, and estimated lower costs Contractor street sweeping performance cannot match that currently being performed by City employees. The reasons -

• 1. Use of comparably inferior equipment. Long Beach uses the Elgin Pelican an industry standard, and has for over 30 years. This machine has by design, unique operating features unavailable by design in lesser equipment. - unmatched maneuverability to sweep around corners at interesections, and thus avoid cross traffic, and accomplish immediate u-turns in response to observed poor sweeping, etc.

• 2. Inability of contractor sweepers to access our City public agency radio frequency to maintain close coordination with accompanying parking enforcement. Alternative radio links as proposed will not restore the same level of communication, and will result in decreased citation revenue to the City.

• 3. Decreased citation revenue, when factored in to comparing City vs. contractor operating costs, approximately equalizes both costs, with a very conservative (10%) loss. As a result, net lower contractor operating costs are not born out in the firm's analysis.

Finding No. 2 - RE. Contractor performance not detrimental to best interests of Long Beach citizens - contractor street sweeping may be very detrimental to our citizens' best interests. The reason - The City, and City employees in particular, have an innate responsibility for the safety and well-being of our citizens, a responsibility that a contractor and its employees does not have.

One most critical responsibility is responding to natural disasters affecting the City. It is generally concluded by experts that a high magnitude earthquake will occur affecting Southern California. Long Beach has already been so impacted once, in 1933. This could occur again.

The City needs, under its direct control, a sufficient number of people and equipment to be almost instantly available in such an event.

In the past, the Street Maintenance Division at Public Service had been the emergency "go to" resource - three grading crews working in the field to complete a 30 mile annual street resurfacing program - that could be immediately diverted to anywhere needed. The division in those days had approximately 70 employees, most of whom were equiment operators and maintenance assistants using motorgraders, front-end loaders, and dump trucks - almost everything required to open up streets, a critical first order of business to permit access by police, fire, ambulances, utilities, etc.

Today, this resource has been severely downsized due to contracting out, including the Street Tree Division, also located at Public Service. A visit to the remainder of this yard, most of it having been vacated, will reveal what equipment is left and an inability to any longer field a large scale response.

The only City organization left with a sufficient number of people and equipment independently available to respond (it is assumed Police, Fire, and utilities will be overwhelmed) is the sanitation resource in the field - street sweeping and refuse collection working in conjunction.

Street Sweeping and Parking Control utilizing the same radio frequency from the Temple and Willow yard, could instantly be diverted from sweeping routes to perform a City - wide street survey to locate and report street conditions. These units combined, could field up to fifteen sweepers, and a like number of parking enforcement units, or thirty first respondents.

Upon completing a survey, street sweeping first responders would remain in the field, commencing initial street clearing, and awaiting arrival of dispatched refuse collection units - also on the same radio frequency, having been diverted from refuse collection routes, as available.

Refuse collection units could be diverted in whole, if necessary, totaling approximately 100 employees with 50 refuse collection vehicles. However, this resource could remain available for only two days before accumulating, uncollected refuse would need to be addressed, on a weekend. After that, a cessation of street sweeping would continue indefinitely - Elgins still in use, along with spare refuse collection vehicles.

Private contractor street sweeping personnel and equipment probably could not be mandated to participate, under City direction, in an emergency response scenario as described. Even so, contractor participation would hinder a City response due to separated radio communication, and equipment not suited for manual loading of debris. The result would be a 50% loss of first responder communication ability, and almost a complete loss of any initial street clearing ability. This is definitely detrimental to the best interests of citizens of the City.

FINAL SUMMARY RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION

This subject City Manager letter of recommendation is little more than a rehash of the basic, fatally flawed RFP. The letter further compounds vague and questionable assertions as to "experience in the performance of comparable engagements" by the proposed contractor - a stated criterion upon which the proposal evaluation and contract award shall be based.

The last omission of not addressing any disaster response capability from City staffed street sweeping, as opposed to contractor staffing is astounding, given the risky results. But, this is in line with the entire preceding process - incomplete, lacking transparency, and finally - premature in placing this issue before Council at this time. There is no rush to contract out Street Sweeping, if ever, especially considering a ten year contract, and upcoming Council Elections.

Further, there are other organizational options available to accomplish the City objectives

We therefore, recommend withdrawal of the flawed RFP.

LBREPORT.com will, as always, carry LIVE VIDEO of tonight's City Council meeting on our front page, www.LBREPORT.com, scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m.

Opinions expressed on LBREPORT.com are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook, plus moderate length letters and longer-form opinion pieces (op-eds) submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.

As always, LBREPORT.com will provide live coverage of tonight's City Council meeting starting at 5 p.m. on front page: www.LBREPORT.com. )