Clovis halted awarding a 10-year contract for its residential and commercial recycling services, throwing the privately-operated service into minor disarray.
Instead, the city is going to go out to bid on split contracts to separate residential and commercial services.
Driving the news: Clovis received three bids for its recycling contract – one from Mid Valley Disposal, one from Caglia Environmental and one from Republic Services, the company that currently works with the city on a $4.6 million annual deal.
- Mid Valley Disposal proposed the lowest contract at $5.5 million annually, 20% more than the current contract and in line with the city’s projected revenue for recycling bills.
- Caglia Environmental proposed a $6.7 million contract, 45% higher than the current costs, and Republic Services proposed an $8.2 million contract, 79% higher than its current deal.
- City staff recommended the city council award the contract to Mid Valley Disposal.
The big picture: The city council voted 3-2 to delay the contract and split the residential and commercial services. Lynne Ashbeck, Matt Basgall and Drew Bessinger supported the delay.
- The city had initially used HF&H Consultants for the request for proposal, but Clovis Public Utilities Director Scott Redelfs said during Tuesday’s council meeting that the consultant was not included in the scoring process, claiming HF&H Consultants had worked with Mid Valley Disposal previously.
- The city now is facing a negotiation process with Republic Services – whose current contract expires July 31, 2025 – to continue service temporarily while the dual proposals are circulated and reviewed. When asked by Ashbeck about a potential interim extension, Republic representatives could not confirm during the meeting whether current recycling rates would remain the same.
Go deeper: Mid Valley Disposal CEO Joseph Kalpakoff told GV Wire that his company has never worked directly with HF&H Consultants, noting that they are a consultants to municipalities directly, not waste providers.
- Redelfs did not expand on the potential conflict of interest during the meeting.
- “Councilmembers wanted to explore a variety of arrangements not contemplated in the initial request for proposals, regardless of potential cost increases for Clovis residents — both in the short and long term,” Kalpakoff told GV Wire, adding that the company plans on bidding on the separated services “and again demonstrating Mid Valley is the best value for residents and delivers the highest quality of service.”
What they’re saying: Ashbeck told GV Wire that the approach did not consider the city’s future growth.
- “It cannot be the same framework,” Ashbeck told the publication. “And I felt like we just took that last 10 year contract and made it the next 10 year contract. And that to me was a mistake.”
- Mayor Pro Tem Diane Pearce disagreed with the majority in a statement to the publication, saying “I did not hear anything I felt was legitimate or tangible in terms of benefiting the ratepayers and community with [the decision to re-bid the services separately.]”
What we’re watching: A separate push emerged during debate on the contract Tuesday, with Caglia Environmental chief Rich Caglia noting that the city ought to consider privatizing the entirety of its solid waste services – residential trash, residential recycling, commercial trash, and commercial recycling – due to state mandates for conversion of municipal fleets to electric trucks.
- “You’re facing within the next, likely proposed budget year after this next year, is facing electrification of your [waste truck] fleet, increased costs that you’re not likely to take on,” Caglia said during the meeting. “So essentially what you’re doing here is beginning the process of privatization and you’re going to have one contractor that you could potentially select tonight or you could select two and then we both have a shot at going after your business – the rest of it – because you’re probably not going to take on the burden of the millions of dollars it’s going to take to improve your fleet for electrification, because that only applies to you as a city. It does not apply to [private haulers].”
