CC PACKET 07082014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

63 City Staff also agrees with the Haulers that they did not meet this Priority. Conversely, the addition of a number of City duties in the Proposal as discussed above creates challenges to administrative efficiency and adds costs to both the City and its residents. Nevertheless, as a whole, the Proposal and Draft Agreement attempt to find an ongoing collaborative balance, in light of the changes inherent to organized collection and the City's desire to manage billing. C. Statutory Criteria Throughout the City's exploration of organized collection, including within the 60 -day negotiation period and in the creation of the Proposal and Draft Agreement, the City has intended to follow the requirements of the Organized Collection Statute. With respect to the Proposal, the Statute requires the following: ✓ The proposal must include identified city priorities. ✓ The proposal must reflect existing haulers maintaining their respective market share of business. ✓ The initial organized collection agreement must be for a period of three to seven years. Requirement #1 (city priorities): City Priorities were discussed in Section II(B) of this Memorandum. Requirement #2 (market share): The Haulers collaborated with each other to determine market share and have represented to City Staff and in the Draft Agreement that the zoned collection routes reflect the Haulers' current market share as required by the Statute. Requirement #3 (term): Pursuant to the Proposal and Section 10 of the Draft Agreement, the Haulers have proposed a six-year initial term, with three additional, optional one-year extensions. Solely with respect to the Statute's requirements, City Staff believes this arrangement is appropriate. Of course, the Council should assess whether this term is appropriate overall. D. Other Considerations Term of Agreement. As stated above, the Proposal and Draft Agreement call for a six-year initial term, with three additional, optional one-year extensions. The Haulers state that this arrangement is "consistent with other Municipal contracts [they] have worked on" and that "a slightly longer contract" is necessary "in order to develop a price scenario that truly benefits the residents of the City." The Council should consider the Foth Memo and City Staff analysis to determine whether the proposed prices are, in fact, truly beneficial to the City and its residents. The Council should also consider the implications of a longer contract term and whether the Council desires to bind future Councils to the contract.