The Council member who cast the lone dissenting vote against a no-bid contract extension that raises trash rates and removed the cap on cost-of-living increases, again demanded answers on Monday, saying the company has been named in other lawsuits alleging corruption.

The Council recently voted 4-1 to grant its trash hauler, Valley Vista Services, Inc. massive rate increases, a provision that changes their existing cap on the cost-of-living increases, and awarded the company an additional ten-year extension on the agreement.
Councilmember Frances Marquez was the only member voting against the agreement.
This week, she asked to put the item on the agenda and the discussion once again centered on Valley Vista.

“I’m looking for solutions to make sure the trash contract goes out to bid in an open and fair competitive process.” Marquez said, suggesting the trash contract was, in essence, “written to protect Valley Vista.”

“Why,” she asked?

The vote on the no-bid 10-year Valley Vista contract extension, said Marquez, was missing the usual “termination language” evident in the standard city contract.
In addition to a trash collection rate increase, the new 10-year extension removed the cost-of-living ceiling.

Under the previous contract, Valley Vista was not allowed to charge more than three percent annually for cost-of-living increases. Accordingly, residents could face additional hikes as early as July.

Marquez repeated a litany of complaints, which she suggested amounted to, at best, preferential treatment for Valley Vista.

“I’m just wondering who wrote this [Valley Vista] contract,” said Marquez, saying she wanted to make changes to the city’s process by way of an ordinance to prevent any future occurrences.

City Attorney Fred Galante, who said he had a hand in drafting the agreement, disagreed with even the premise of Marquez’ argument.

“There’s sort of a lot of components to your question,” started Galante. “The premise seems to be that there’s a mistake that was made and frankly, I can’t say affirmatively that that’s a correct statement,” he added.

“I have done multiple franchise agreements for trash services,” said Galante. “I have done multiple franchise agreements,” he repeated, “and I can tell you that none of those contracts look like any other contract the city does,” said Galante. “They just don’t.”

He suggested waste haulers indeed do require special treatment, citing their business infrastructure requirements necessitate significant upfront investments to provide the service.

He said trash companies must not only invest in trucks, routes, other vehicles, trash bins, but in all of the “resources that are required” to fulfill the contract. He suggested that if trash haulers were forced to comply with the terms of other city contracts, there would likely be few such trash haulers in California.

“If you could terminate without cause,” said Galante, “you would not see a single contract in the state of California,” he suggested. He said the nature of the trash hauling business is such that few agreements of that sort [allowing termination without cause] would exist.

There must be some sort of legal requirement or “a more significant material breach” for there to legally exist “a mechanism for a city to oust a company that has invested in trucks, routes, customer bins, etc.,” said Galante.

Regarding the ordinance, he said “I have a hard time just responding to the question. The short answer to your question is that an ordinance may be placed on the agenda,” he put forward, noting “there’s a first reading and then a second reading 30 days later then the ordinance becomes effective. So that’s the short answer.”

Mayor Paulo Morales suggested Marquez work with City Manager Peter Grant to develop what exactly she wants to place on a future agenda, quickly adding that he too believes no mistakes were made in the Valley Vista agreement.

Morales too, said everything was done properly with the Valley Vista agreement.

“There were no mistakes,” said Morales, noting “I forgot it’s a public utility contract.” The mayor said those agreements operate “under a different set of guidelines than standard city contracts.”

Morales said the city’s contract with Valley Vista Services “was bid.”

City Attorney Fred Galante spoke up to clarify, saying “actually, the opportunity to bid or extend was a city council decision. The decision would not have happened automatically,” he said, “it would have been re-bid but the city council, for the reasons it made, extended the contract rather than re-bid it.”

The last “bid” for trash hauling service was in 2014, city records indicate, so there was a bid, but not since then.

Morales said Valley Vista not only provides free service to the Boys and Girls Club but “they have given those same types of free services to many nonprofits, not just in our city.” He said Valley Vista provides “a lot of [free] services that seem to get overlooked by people when these issues come up.”

Councilmember Scott Minikus lauded Valley Vista for its quick action in cleaning up a recent hydraulic spill near Graham Circle, spending 10-12 hours on it. I’m not defending it any one way or the other. I’m just talking about the extraordinary service,” said Minikus.

Councilmember Jon Peat, who has been involved with Valley Vista during much of his two terms on the council, was upset by the continuing allegations, saying he had developed his own “white paper” to explain and provide an overview to the Valley Vista negotiations, claiming every extension and rate increase given to Valley Vista was justified and well documented.

“I would be happy to meet with anybody to discuss the history of the trash contract,” said Peat.

Peat claimed the city’s team, which included the Council committee, a third-party consultant and many members within the city’s public works department were all also involved in the decision-making process.

“I want to stand up for our employees,” said Peat.

“We went through their [Valley Vista] financials against the industry standard, and it has always been determined that they were within the acceptable norm of the industry,” said Peat.

Also, said Peat, “it should be noted that I’ve offered councilmember Marquez an opportunity to discuss the trash contract and she has declined to meet with “the person that has the most experience on the city council working with the trash contract.”

“I’m tired of you [Marquez] making these unsubstantiated allegations against our excellent staff. This is outrageous,” said Peat, directing his remarks at Marquez.

Peat defended the public works staff, saying they worked hundreds and hundreds of hours on the contract extension and the bottom line, “our residents have got one of the best rates from any of the trash haulers in the area.”

“I don’t understand why some members of the community, and Councilmember Marquez, keep beating on this drum,” he said.

Marquez said Peat had interpreted her remarks all wrong.

“I’m not saying anything about our staff. I love our staff,” said Marquez. “I think they do a great job. They’re the experts,” she said.

“I’m just saying that you know we make the decisions and then they carry them out. This is not about the staff, this is about the people making the decisions,” she said.

Moreover, Marquez asked to place a 2021 article into the record written by investigative reporter Jason Henry of the Southern California News Group that profiles another “evergreen” Valley Vista contract that drew attention in the City of Industry.

Going forward, Marquez said she will work on an ordinance. “This cannot happen again,” she said, noting her intent to ask for an ordinance to be placed on a future agenda to prevent no-bid agreements.

In other action Monday the city council gave its blessing for the resumption of the Cypress citizens academy, of sorts, “to educate and develop current and future leaders,” Grant told the council.

Citizens may soon apply to become part of a class that Grant said will run every Tuesday evening in June and July. He said citizens will be given insights into city government through an extended set of courses and outings, he said.

“The goal is an engaging program that opens up the doors of local government to residents and business owners who want to learn about what we do to be actively and constructively engaged in the city,” said Grant.

Finally, the Council agreed to meet with citizens who live near the North Maple Grove Park that were outraged at the city’s plan to install a bathroom facility at the park. David Balsille told the council he and his wife live nearby and are the parents of six school-aged children.
Also, he presented a petition to the Council signed by many of the 400-plus homeowners who agree.

The Council earlier voted 4-1 [Marquez voting against] to begin the process of spending approximately $500,000 to install a bathroom in the decades-old park. “It was a bad idea,” said Balsille, “definitely a bad idea.”

“We’re already dealing with unhoused individuals camping along the park, as well as vagrant individuals coming up the standard wash trail into our neighborhoods, going in people’s garages, using their yards as restrooms. And this restroom would only serve as a welcome sign to those individuals and more.”

Following the Cypress City Council’s 4-1 vote to reject allegations made by a Malibu law firm that it was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, the city’s legal counsel has provided specific responses in a letter posted on the city’s website.

The letter has sparked intense debate among Cypress citizens in the eight months since the allegations were made. Some citizens claim Cypress is knowingly risking millions of taxpayer dollars amid almost certain defeat just to have the process delayed until the next election cycle while others, including a handful of Asian Americans, have testified they are not in favor of single-member districts.

The 2020 Census indicates that Americans of Asian-American descent make up nearly 40 percent of its population.

Most other nearby cities, including Los Alamitos, Stanton, Seal Beach, La Palma, Orange, and others have voluntarily switched to single-member districts. Most cities that have fought the CVRA allegations have paid millions in fines.

In a certified letter to the city dated September 17, 2021, Attorney Kevin Shenkman, writing on behalf of the Southwest Voter Education Project, alleged “voting within the city is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and, therefore, the City’s at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (“CVRA”).”

“The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called ’at-large’ voting – an election method that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat,” said Shenkman in the four-page letter, “because they often result in vote dilution.”
Shenkman’s letter cited the council’s actions and words further reinforced their knowledge of the violation.

“The [Cypress] City Council’s recent difficulty with adopting even a resolution acknowledging the Asian American community and encouraging their participation in the City, and then its blanket refusal to show support for another minority community [LGBTQ], is also telling,” said Shenkman’s letter.

“Then mayor’s [Jon Peat’s] remark – “I don’t believe it is our responsibility to ensure access and success to any particular group” – demonstrates the unresponsiveness to minority communities that at­large elections are known to cause, notes Shenkman’s letter, citing the specific legal references. in his letter.”

“Ms. [Carrie] Katsumata Hayashida was passed over for an applicant who the council thought would work more cooperatively with the council majority and city staff,” the Malibu lawyer firm claimed in his demand letter.

In a response to Shenkman’s letter now posted to the city’s website, Cypress city attorney Fred Galante claims single-member districts would have, in fact, created the opposite affect sought.

Since the bulk of your letter follows the same form letter you have sent many jurisdictions in California, your office, and your client Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (“SVREP”) fail to acknowledge certain key attributes about Cypress’ demographics and its elections that lead to the opposite conclusion; the City’s at- large election system does not violate the CVRA,” said Galante in the response.

“An analysis of these attributes would lead SVREP to admit that your allegations about the City violating the CVRA are unwarranted,” he said in the letter.

“Indeed, the City’s demographics and the diversity of candidates historically elected to the City Council of the City demonstrates that the City is not a candidate for your boilerplate allegations,” said Galante responding for the city.

In an interesting twist, the city attorney uses the election of a member whom has constantly claimed to have been bullied as an example.

“First, the city has enjoyed a strong track record of having those persons who receive the most votes behind successful Council candidates getting elected at subsequent Council elections. This example can be seen by viewing even the most recent election when Council Member Marquez, a minority candidate, won the election after her second run for a City Council seat,” said Galante.

“In her first run for Council, she received the second-highest number of votes behind the three successful candidates. As such, there is ample evidence that there is no racially polarized voting pattern in the City to warrant switching to by-district elections.”
Galante pointed out that Shenkman “refused” to provide any evidence that racially polarized voting exists in Cypress.

“You refused, notwithstanding the obligations of a CVRA plaintiff to demonstrate more than simply pointing to one minority candidate who lost an at-large election,” the city attorney says in the response.

“I explained to you that the City’s demographer found no evidence of racially polarized voting. As such, it would not only be appropriate for SVREP to provide this basic information it purports to have in support of its letter, the information would need to be demonstrated in any action against the City in any event,” Galante points out in the letter.
Although the city claims to have performed a demographic study, it has never been discussed at a city council meeting nor has it been released to the public.

In the city’s response letter, Galante further cites legal cases to illustrate “a plaintiff alleging violations of the CVRA must prove “racially polarized voting” by establishing that a minority group tends to vote in a similar manner, that is “politically cohesive,” and that “the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it – in the absence of special circumstances… – usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”

Galante also claims that Shenkman’s letter “overlooks” the fact that “the city has had a history” of Asian-American candidates being elected.”

Galante cites the winning campaigns of Lydia Sondhi and Dr. Prakash Narain as examples. Sondhi was in 1998 and again in 2002, while Dr. Narain was elected in 2006 and again in 2010.

“Certainly, these undeniable trends of Asian Americans succeeding in the City’s at-large elections confirm that Cypress is not the appropriate target for your cookie cutter CVRA letters.”

Galante’s letter claims Shenkman’s demand letter “also incorrectly assumes that minority voters prefer only minority candidates,” citing court rulings that he claims justify the claim.
Galante says the Cypress Elementary School District, which “substantially shares voting borders with those of the city’s jurisdiction, confirms that Asian Americans have enjoyed tremendous success” in their bids for seats.

Incidents, which Galante’s letter claims, are “valuable evidence that racially polarized voting within the city’s borders simply does not exist.”

Finally, Galante informs Shenkman that a case currently under Supreme Court review rejected a vote dilution theory, “similar to the one you advance here…as unprecedented and unwise.”

Shenkman was traveling and not immediately available for comment but has promised a response and even threatened to seek an injunction against the city to halt the election altogether.