Laserfiche WebLink
04 sti NTe_ <br /> REQUEST FOR <br /> COUNCIL ACTION <br /> pq' t O ft,,pr e� f/, / <br /> PREPARED BY Ronal d F. idol ford DATE OF COUNCIL ACTI�yO_N&� eft/1776 <br /> DATE 10-11-76 PHONE 4116 ��% .eae izope-a iw/, 07/4t <br /> ,t4-1,-stsida4As in <br /> SUBJECT REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF /'��Ye <br /> f 74 <br /> CONTRACT PERIOD BY REFUSE <br /> COLLECTION CONTRACTOR. GREAT <br /> WESTERN RECLAMATION, INC. <br /> OVED moi..- f <br /> DEPUTY CITY MANAGER CIT Vq - ,// CLERK OF THE COUNCIL <br /> RECOMMENDED ACTION '•iy- <br /> It is recommended that the City Council set for public hearing the -request by <br /> Great Western Reclamation, Inc. for extension of the contract termination date <br /> from October 31 , 1978 to October 31 , 1981. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> Arguments in favor of extending the contract period are as follows: <br /> 1 . The present contractor is providing high quality of service. <br /> 2. Additional time may be needed for amortization of the contractor' s head- <br /> quarters repair and yard facility on South Grand Avenue. <br /> i <br /> 3 . Additional time may be needed by the contractor to amortize new equipment <br /> purchases. <br /> 1 4 . The break-in period for a new contractor could be a traumatic experience <br /> servicewise for the citizens which could last up to 12 months or more. <br /> Arguments against extending the contract period as follows: <br /> 1. The primary assurance of a fair price for trash customers is through re- <br /> bidding the contract. The principle of open competition in the market- <br /> place is not being met in light of a 15-year exclusive contract now being <br /> considered for extension to 18 years. <br /> 2. The present contract provides for exclusive collection by the contractor <br /> of both residential and commercial refuse. If extended on the present <br /> basis, it would continue the inability of individual merchants and industrial <br /> firms from seeking more economical prices for commercial bin service in <br /> the marketplace. <br /> 3. No additional time is needed to amortize collection equipment as it could <br /> be readily absorbed by sister companies of SCA Services if Great Western <br /> Reclamation was not the successful bidder for a new contract. <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> The City Council at their meeting of September 20 , 1976 referred to staff for <br /> report and recommendation a request from Great Western Reclamation, Inc. for <br /> an extension of its refuse collection contract from October 31 , 1978 to Octo- <br /> ber 31, 1981. <br /> Great Western' s letter of request dated September 14 , 1976 also suggested that <br /> an additional seven year extension to October 31 , 1988 would need to be com- <br /> mitted in order for them to start on a project for a $2.25 million resource <br /> recovery facility in the City of Santa Ana. Because the resource recovery <br /> program is very complex and would need additional study and firming up of <br /> commitments on both sides, it was agreed by Mr . Blackman that this could be <br /> 4conoN <br /> i <br /> z °m <br /> —1— <br /> • S5 <br /> W z <br /> -• <br />{ <br />