Laserfiche WebLink
Trash Contract <br /> Page 6 <br /> Council ' s refusal to extend the current contract beyond its existing two <br /> year expiration date would probably tend to lessen the chances of substan- <br /> tial capital investment in upgrading equipment or plant which could not <br /> be amortized or salvaged (sold at a reasonable price as used equipment or <br /> transferred to another job site) . The result could be to prolong the use <br /> of worn-out or unsafe equipment which would reduce efficiency and not serve <br /> the public interest well. On the other hand, an overly long contract ex- <br /> tension could induce complacency and reduce the incentives for seeking <br /> increased productivity. Based upon the lengths of contracts observed in <br /> other cities, a moderate length would be approximately five years. If an <br /> option for an additional five year extension (from October 31, 1981) were <br /> available in October, 1979 an adequate period would be available to imple- <br /> ment and evaluate these amendements and still provide ample "lead time" <br /> to prepare for rebidding to become effective in 1981 should the option not <br /> be granted. <br /> In addition, in the event that the City believes the contractor has failed <br /> to perform in a satisfactory manner for any reason, it shall after 10 days <br /> written notice and a public hearing and the declaration of a health emer- <br /> gency, permit the City to utilize the contractor's equipment to abate the <br /> emergency. Any additional City costs for this abatement would be deducted <br /> from the contractor' s payments . <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> AI <br /> B uce C. Sprat <br /> City Manager <br /> ms <br /> cc: Director of Public Works <br /> City Attorney <br /> Finance Director <br /> Tom Blackman <br />