My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0822
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0822
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:41 AM
Creation date
9/13/2005 11:14:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Rules/Appointments
Meeting Date
8/22/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 08/22/05 <br />Minutes - Page 34 <br /> <br />Page 31, Section 8.05, Liquidated Damages <br />City Attorney Anderson spoke in support of defining as many <br />liquidated damages as possible for the City's benefit in putting <br />prospective contractors on notice ofthe City's expectations. <br /> <br />Mr. Pratt addressed numerous issues related to missed walk up <br />collections and the frustration of residents when this occurred; <br />and the need to entice drivers to perform their duties. <br /> <br />Mr. Pratt also noted the potential for designing a program to <br />effectively meet the City's needs (i.e., tonnage collected versus <br />collection points). <br /> <br />Section 8.05, d), Throwing or Dropping Containers <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned how to enforce this <br />section; and cautioned that residents may use this to make a <br />contractor look bad. <br /> <br />Page 32, i) <br />It was Council consensus to remove item i) "Failure to maintain <br />vehicle in manner which prevents nuisances such as leaky seals <br />or hydraulics." <br /> <br />Page 37, Section 9.07, Governing Law <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned whether the contractor <br />should have a clause allowing him to terminate the contract. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson questioned if the City wanted such a <br />clause with the potential for no service provider. <br /> <br />Page 41, Section 9.22, Contract Conditions <br />After discussion of the provisions in a), b) and c), and comment <br />by City Attorney Anderson, it was determined that this section <br />would remain as worded, allowing the City to draft the contract, <br />not the contractor. <br /> <br />Staff was directed to implement those discussed revisions into <br />the draft RFP. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.