My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
25A - AGMT - OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
12/16/2014
>
25A - AGMT - OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2014 2:27:57 PM
Creation date
12/11/2014 2:27:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
25A
Date
12/16/2014
Destruction Year
2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Dylen Ruga <br />310 734 3228 <br />druga@steptoe.com <br />2121 Avenue of the Stars <br />Suite 2800 <br />Los Angeles, CA 90067 <br />310 734 3200 main <br />www,steptoe.com <br />November 18, 2014 <br />Via HAND DELIVERY <br />Stemoe <br />STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP <br />Sonia R. Carvalho The Honorable City Council Members <br />City Attorney 20 Civic Center Plaza <br />20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 <br />Santa Ana, California 92701 <br />Re: City Council Agenda for November 18, 2014 <br />Consent Agenda Item No. 25F <br />Dear Ms. Carvalho and Hon. City Council Members, <br />We write on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association to urge City <br />Council to reject the proposed Outdoor Advertising Service Agreement (the "Agreement ") with <br />All Vision, LLC ( "AV "), which is on the City Council's Consent Agenda for November 18, <br />2014 as Item No. 25F. <br />Simply put, the Agreement is a bad deal for the City and will expose it to significant <br />litigation risk, given the myriad procedural and substantive shortcomings in the procurement <br />process and the Agreement itself. First, the Agreement was the result of an unusually —and <br />unnecessarily —short RFP process. The RFP was issued on May 30, 2014 and the submittal <br />deadline was on June 12, 2014, a mere 9 business days later. As you know, Section 2 -806 of the <br />Santa Ana Municipal Code requires RFPs to be issued "a reasonable time prior to the date set <br />forth therein for the opening of bids The extremely short timeframe here was not <br />reasonable, particularly given the lack of an emergency or other exigency requiring a shortened <br />bidding process. <br />Second, the Agreement allows AV to deduct all "Direct Expenses" and "Costs of <br />Construction and Maintenance" before the City sees a dime from revenue generated by <br />billboards on City property. The definitions of these terms are purposefully vague and provide <br />AV with every incentive to run up the costs of the projects rather than minimize them. For this <br />25A -36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.