9
Susana Barrios
From: Kenneth Piguee <
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 9:09 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@anaheim.net>
Cc: Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas
<BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Cameron Wessel <CWessel@anaheim.net>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] 8/20 Agenda Item #9
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Good morning-
I live in District 6 at
I am extremely concerned and opposed to item #9 which is awarding a state advocacy contract to a
relatively unknown (to OC) government affairs firm.
The staff report mentions that "Due to their relatively small client base with municipalities, FGA offers the
city dedicated representation without any direct conflicts and fewer potential conflicts in representing
Anaheim objectives. As part of FGA’s proposal, the firm will subcontract with Carter, Wetch, and
Associates, another well-known Sacramento advocacy firm, on certain Anaheim issues that may require
a more robust legislative strategy." Put in other words, this firm does not have experience with cities and
needs to bring in another firm to meet the City's objectives.
$17,000 per month is an extremely high fee that is not billed on a time and materials basis, but simply a
retainer. That is $3,950 per week and $785 per day. That is basically 2 people working on Anaheim issues
8 hours per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year, which I have a hard time believing is accurate. On
top of that, there is $13,000 for travel costs and "services beyond the agreed month amount." Why would
the consultant not include this in their already very high $17,000 per month sum, and why would the City
not require that to be included in the base amount?
The staff report mentions an RFP that was conducted. Where are the scores and proposals from the
other firms that submitted?
In a time of budget issues in many cities, we should be looking at ways to keep costs down. At a
minimum, the City should switch to a time and materials contract with a not to exceed of $17K per
month with travel/other costs included. At least that way on the days/weeks that the consultant is not
advancing the City's objectives, there could be some cost savings.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
1
Sincerely,
--
Kenneth Piguee
2