Laserfiche WebLink
and Commissions shall be vested with subpoena power. The <br />motion was seconded by Councilman Ward and carried <br />unanimously 6:0. (This would require an amendment to <br />Section 906 of the City Charter.) CA 129 <br /> <br />EXTENSION OF CONTRACT <br />GREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION <br />GRANTED SUBJBCT TO NEGOTIATIONS <br /> <br />ber 31, 1978 to October 31, 1979) <br />contract was granted, subject to <br /> <br /> After a lengthy <br /> discussion, the <br /> request for a one-year <br /> extension (from Octo- <br /> of the refuse collection <br />negotiations among the <br /> <br />Staff, the Contractor and a representative .of the City <br />Council during the next 45 days, at which time a report <br />shall be. submitted for Council approval, on the motion of <br />Councilman Ward, seconded by Councilman Bricken, and <br />carried 4:2, with Councilmen Brandt and Ortiz dissenting. <br /> <br />A subsequent motion by Councilman Bricken, seconded by <br />Councilman Yamamoto, and unanimously approved 6:0, authorized <br />Mayor Garthe to be the Council representative, or to select <br />a Council representative to participate in the negotiations. <br /> <br />The motion authorized negotiation in good Yaith on all items <br />relating to the contractual relationship now and in the <br />future, and provided that items of disagreement and agree- <br />ment be included in the report; and that subjects for dis- <br />cussion and report include, but not be limited to, the <br />following: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />A proposal of the scope of continuing ne:gotia- <br />tions, including the possible development of <br />a request for proposal (RFP) for a consultant <br />to do a study on key contract questions, such <br />as the advantage or disadvantage of re-bidding <br />or extending the present contract, rate compari- <br />sons-and reclamation possibilities; <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />A description of the extent of financial dis- <br />closure or accountability by Great Western; <br />and <br /> <br />Other items set forth in the Assistant City <br />Manager's reports of October 11 and December 15, <br />1976. <br /> <br />Mr. H. Rodger Howell, Rutan and Tucker, representing the con- <br />tractor, requested that a one-year extension, instead of the <br />previously requested three years, be granted with the under- <br />standing that the year of 1977 be devoted to a good faith <br />commitment on the part of the Contractor and the Staff of <br />the City, who will sit down and spend the time to go through <br />the long list of items that has been developed to see if the <br />ultimate arrangement can be devised that meets all the concerns <br />expressed by the Staff, the public and the Council; that if <br />successful a milestone will have been achieved in public <br />affairs / private enterprise cooperation; that the Contrac- <br />tor has ha~ a good relationship with the City and wishes the <br />opportunity to continue it. A-76-42 <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />471 <br /> <br />DECEMBER 20, 1976 <br /> <br /> <br />