Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />{ <br /> • <br /> City Council <br /> Page 3 <br /> as shown in the staff report of January 16 (page 4) . Furthermore, we <br /> are both in agreement that it would be well to eliminate these refund <br /> payments entirely, since they are counterproductive to the cost analysis <br /> which, we are now involved in, and merely increase the contractor' s <br /> costs and require him to ask for this reimbursement back again from <br /> the City. <br /> S. We both agreed that any further discussion of item 9 (request for <br /> supplemental payment) would depend upon our conclusions upon further <br /> analysis of the cost data which he has submitted and the supplemental <br /> data which he has agreed to provide. <br /> 10. We are both in agreement that longer terms for the refuse contract <br /> will provide more stability and be beneficial both to the contractor <br /> and the City. Mr.. Blackman stated that failure to extend the current <br /> contract which expires in two years would cause him to retrench in his <br /> capital replacement program for equipment and would adversely affect <br /> his long-range planning for the recycling program. In response to my <br /> question about whether his firm would rebid in the event the City did <br /> not extend the current contract, he answered that he thought they <br /> probably would give this favorable consideration . <br /> I am furnishing a copy of this memo to Mr. Blackman also for his informa- <br /> tion and have agreed to meet with him again before the Council meeting if <br /> we both feel further discussion would be worthwhile at this time. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> City Manager <br /> ms <br /> Enclosures <br /> • <br /> cc: City Attorney . <br /> Director of Public Works <br /> Management Analyst <br /> Clerk of the Council - <br /> Tom Blackman <br /> 4 <br />