CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 36 Mr. Culver responded that without going into specificities, staff had tried insert- ing a clause addressing a percentage of either processing or pick-up costs, but had been unsuccessful in garnering that language. Mr. Culver stated staff’s agreement to continuing negotiations with Eureka, but anticipated any such provision will increase base costs for the city. Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion; and while not having as much con- cern as that expressed by Councilmember Willmus, stated the open-ended nature of the contract did cause him concern. Mayor Roe suggested revisiting the issue with the intent to establish a point that the contract has to be reopened if nothing else. Mayor Roe noted both parties were in this together and would both be in trouble if the commodities market dropped again, and suggested both the contrac- tor and city look at a different approach going forward if that should happen and address such an opportunity versus how the contract is currently written. Mayor Roe noted that the city typically has some way to protect its interests better. Councilmember McGehee asked if there was anything in the contract as it now stands that would provide an opportunity to renegotiate. City Attorney Gaughan noted that any contract can be amended to the mutual agreement of both parties, including such a provision in the proposed contract as presented. However, Mr. Gaughan noted the question was if there was mutual agreement to do so. In order to protect the city’s interest, Mr. Gaughan submitted that the city would not be interested in a mutual consent to renegotiate clause, but that the city could retain the right to unilaterally terminate the contract or renego- tiate specific terms. Mayor Roe noted that provision was not in this current proposed contract. Councilmember Willmus noted Mayor Roe had touched upon a resolution, some- thing that could serve as a trigger mechanism; and offered his support for such language. Roll Call Ayes: McGehee. Nays: Willmus, Etten and Roe. Motion failed. Willmus moved to continue negotiations with Eureka based on the structure of this proposed agreement; but inserting a floor or triggering mechanism to allow the contract to be reviewed if and when a certain threshold is reached, to be de- termined by city staff during negotiations, at which time the contract will be reo- pened and renegotiated. City Attorney Gaughan reiterated his concern is renegotiation depending on such a provision. By way of example, Mr. Gaughan noted a result of such a provision