Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Parking Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves staff recommendation on Ontario airport parking contract amid public protest over procurement
Summary
After public comment from bidders and union representatives, the council approved a staff recommendation on the Ontario Airport parking contract; speakers criticized the procurement as flawed and more expensive than other bids, and the council approved the staff recommendation by roll call
The Los Angeles City Council on April 25 approved a staff recommendation related to the parking contract at Ontario Airport after a contested public hearing that drew multiple bidders and union representatives.
Opponents said the procurement process was flawed and awarded work to a higher‑cost bidder. Howard Sunken, one of the petitioners, said the award was "a gift" to the winning bidder and called for the council to throw out the bids and reprocure with an independent process. Larry Norton, Director of Operations for ACE Parking and Management, said his firm was the low bidder by about $950,000 per year and urged the council to select his company.
Other speakers included Hugo Morris of Teamsters Local 911, who supported the commission’s award and referenced worker conditions and continuity; representatives of firms that have run airport parking operations in the past also addressed the council. Councilmember Mike Hernandez, who moved staff’s recommendation on the floor, said his motion was intended to rely on staff analysis and the existing record; he noted he asked to move the item so it could be decided while a quorum was present.
The council voted to adopt the staff recommendation on the roll with the tally recorded as 11 ayes. Several council members acknowledged the controversy and asked staff to provide more detail in future committee work; one speaker urged a full rebid or independent review but the council did not order a new procurement at the hearing.
The record shows the dispute centered on price differentials between bidders, the contract term (three years historically vs. a five‑year award cited by a commenter), and perceived fairness of the procurement process. Council action at the meeting implemented the committee/staff recommendation; councilmembers asked staff to provide additional background as needed.
