My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0915_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0915_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2011 4:47:27 PM
Creation date
10/20/2011 4:15:27 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
333
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attichmcst #2 <br />r'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrr i �I� <br />10050 Naples Sr. NE <br />Maine, MN 55449 <br />t952) 890-11N <br />(763) 783 -5477 Fax <br />Mr. Neal Beets <br />City Manager <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />Re: Fetter of August 22, 2003 <br />Dear Mr. Beets,, <br />This letter is in response to your letter dated August 22, 2003. <br />i) As per Council member Kough's proposal fora 3 year fixed rate contract with a 3 <br />year extension the rate would have to be greater then the HRG rate for 2406 as <br />specified in their favored nation clause. (2003 rate of $2.25 xCPI -U for 2004 x <br />CPI -U for 2005 xCPT -U for 2006 rate) It therefore is impossible to compute. <br />2) The Mayor's question on ownership of the carts like the l obb ins dale agreement) . <br />Their contract is over $ 1 million annually and with extension is a 10 year <br />agreement. If the City of Roseville wants to enter into a $1 million contract for <br />years I am sure we could work out the cart ownership issue. <br />It was my understanding after the meeting that the contract would reflect the same <br />language as PIING matching their rate for 5 gears. <br />The rate would he upon delivery of carts this fall 52.25 with a P1 -1_J increase January <br />1,2004. This rate would be adjusted annually on this date by CPI -L1. <br />The existing agreement contained "single sort" collection as an option. It is our <br />recommendation we exercise this option rather then rewrite the entire contract! <br />Profit sharing wasn't included in your lP specifications and is a hereby moot. <br />have included the addendum to the contract that works for waste Management. <br />Since y, <br />ar.3, ohm <br />Municipal keying alter <br />nw <br />:;�L % %r fir <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.