<
The City of Morgan Hill continues to have a hard time finding landscaping contractors for public properties who can perform the work expected of them, and at least one council member thinks the bidding and qualifying process could use some improvements.
<
Part of the problem is that potential contractors cannot perform the work requested of them at the cost that the city offers, according to Morgan Hill Program Administrator Anthony Eulo. When the contracts for maintenance of three of the city’s five landscape maintenance “groups” went out for bid earlier this year, 10 contractors attended a pre-bid conference to gain information on a then-imminent Request For Proposals; however, only four submitted bids.
<
“Informal inquiries placed to firms that chose not to bid indicated that the city’s existing contracted costs were so low that (the non-bidding firms) could not provide services that met the city’s standards in that cost range,” reads a city staff report presented by Eulo at the June 15 council meeting. The contracts in question expire June 30.
<
Furthermore, under the city’s criteria for gaining one of these contracts, bidding landscapers must score at least 80 percent under an evaluation system that Morgan Hill Community Services staff apply to each bidder, Eulo explained to the council. But three of the four bidding contractors did not receive the minimum score of 80, because they are “currently seriously underperforming” or have underperformed in the past.
<
For several years, the city has contracted out the maintenance of landscaped areas, including park lawn mowing, street medians, recreation centers, the library, police department, downtown parking lots and 20 “subareas” of a landscape assessment district. Contractors are responsible for pulling weeds, cutting grass, watering plants, maintaining irrigation systems and a list of standards spelled out in the city’s RFP.
<
Of the three groups up for contract approval at the June 15 council meeting, one was for recreation facilities, civic center and police department (Group 2), one for northern assessment district subareas (Group 4) and the third is for assessment district subareas in southern Morgan Hill (Group 5).
<
City Councilman Gordon Siebert said he is “deeply troubled” by the city’s process for selecting landscape contractors, and a 90-page RFP for “gardening services (is) a bit much.” Although the council ultimately approved two of the three city staff recommended new contracts—one of which was at a higher price than the previous contracts—Siebert thought they should go with the lowest bidder.
<
“I thought if the city was going to relax its standards, then saving $30,000 seemed reasonable to me, even if it costs more (for city staff) to manage (the contract),” Siebert said.
<
The landscape assessment district area (Group 4 and 5) includes public areas of residential neighborhoods—vehicle entryways, parks and vegetation islands, for example—in Fox Hollow, Murphy Springs, Llagas Creek Estates, Sparhawk and others.
Funding issues
<
The services in the landscape assessment district are funded by property tax assessments on the homeowners in those neighborhoods, Eulo explained.
<
“Some (of those areas) have caps on the assessment amount, so the city could not raise it above the cap without a vote of the people in that neighborhood,” Eulo said. “We have a long-term strategy where we’re going to look at communicating with the residents to make sure they’re aware we’re not able to serve their community at the current rate of assessment,” or let them know they will get a lower quality of service without an assessment hike.
<
In July 2015, when the council was scheduled to consider raising the assessment in some neighborhoods, a number of homeowners complained about the poor quality of service provided by existing contractors. About 750 homeowners throughout Morgan Hill pay the landscape parcel tax, which varies from $50 to more than $500 per household annually.
<
City Manager Steve Rymer added at the June 15 meeting, “Without us adding significant dollars to our budgets to expect a higher level of service, this is the process we’re going to have.”
<
Group 2 services are funded by a variety of city funds. Contractor BrightView proposed an annual contract cost of $92,832 for Group 2, which is about $25,000 higher than the previous contract. Eulo said the work in this group has been “constantly below city standards” and the increased costs were expected.
<
In Group 4, BrightView proposed annual costs of about $30,000, which is about $5,800 more than the previous contract. BrightView was later able to bring their proposed cost down to about $27,000.
<
The council June 15 ultimately approved these two contracts with BrightView on a 3-1 vote, but declined to adopt a new contract for Group 5. Rather, they extended the current Group 5 contract with New Image Landscape until the end of the year. Until then, city staff will re-bid for a new contract starting Jan. 1. Siebert cast the dissenting vote.
<
New Image is also “not performing satisfactorily” in Group 5, Eulo said. “There’s more weeds than there should be, and there’s irrigation issues.”
<
Siebert added the process to select these contractors should be transparent and offer “a level playing field.” He said he would like to see more details on the city’s evaluations of bidders, and staff should offer more information on all the bidders.
