Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION, INC.1969 CONTRACT FOR REFUSE COLLECTION THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this „J `day of 49,4A7(4/1/ , 1969, by and between the CITY OF SANTA ANA, a muni- cipal corporation, and GREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION, INC. , a corporation. Specific reference is hereby made to the contract entered into by and between the parties hereto on the 12th day of August, 1963 which consisted of two pages and twelve pages of specifications. Said contract is hereby amended in the following particulars: 1. Section 3 (b) of the specifications is deleted, and the following words and figures are substituted in its place: This contract shall be effective from its date of execution and shall terminate at midnight the 31st day of October, 1974. 2 . Section 3 (d) is hereby amended in the following particulars : At lines 3 and 4 thereof the words and figures "Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200, 000. 00) " are deleted and in their place the words and figures One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100, 000.00) are substituted. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. ATTEST : CITY OF SANTA ANA, a municipal st' corporation, 16 4tAfj- 1(iCLERK OF THE c,OUNCIL Ae AYOR CONTRACT APPROVED: GREAT WES 1N REC A A ION, INC. , ro rl/12;kit 4/2 /SiCit__ B - �4 6 deC✓194J/YJ AT ORN Title PRESIDENT DATE: / 2.-47 tf / u�i fe (treat Weotern Reclamation Co. 126 EAST OYER ROAD - --- - - - - SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92707 - - - PHONE: 549-2236 February 27, 1969 Honorable Tom McMichael Mayor, City of Santa Ana Santa Ana, California Dear Sir: It as respectfully requested you place, before the City Council_, the following request : "Renew the Refuse Collection Contract, dated August 12, 1963, with G eat Western Reclamation Co., fbr a period of seven (7) years s ter- minating er-mnat_ng October 315 1978." Sound economic operation requires the constant re- placement of our highly specialized equipment. Our last order for six (6) trucks was placed in August, 1968. Delivery was made February, 1969, at a cost of $172,753.74. Further re- placement of trucks is desirable over the next year , but cannot justify the expenditure of over $5OO,0o0.00 unless the contract is renewed. A number of meeting have been held with the City Manager regarding the renewal of the Refuse Contract. Your consideration of this matter will be appreciated. Very truly yours, OREAt VES3"BRM-RECLAMATION CO. B Thomas L. Blackman r • Avner - - ti J - f j -- f � , TY-E CITY ac SflCTfl flCfl CALIFORNIA March 13, 1969 Please address replies to: MEMO TO: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION ON EXTENSION OF CONTRACT AS REQUESTED BY GREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION, INC. Accompanying this memo is a recommended contract which, in effect, amends the existing contractual relationship with Great Western Rec- lamation, Inc. as follows: a. It extends the length of the existing contract for a. four-year period rather than the seven requested in their letter. This makes the new termination date October 31, 1974 and will keep this contract in effect for five years and eight months. b. It reduces the required amount of the performance bond from $200,000 to $100,000. No other changes are being recommended in this contract at the present time. Also accompanying this memo is: (1) A copy of the proposed contract achieving the changes indicated above, (2) A memorandum to me from the Assistant to the City Manager out- lining the history of contract changes since 1952. (3) A legal opinion from John Colwell as City Attorney dated June 3, 1963, concerning which Mr. Mock has indicated his agreement that this is still good law, and that the City Council can enter into the proposed contract without throwing the entire matter out for bid. (4) A copy of the letter of February 27 filed by Great Western Rec- lamation, Inc. in which they request the extension of the contract. C4,57 :2 City Council Page 2 I certainly would recommend to you that the procedure of entering into this extension of the time for the contract to run is in the best interests of the City since it answers the financing problem of the contractor in the renewal of his truck fleet, which in turn will tend to improve, or at least certainly maintain, the standard of service for the people of the City. Additionally, I would call to your atten- tion that the present contractor has performed quite capably during the entire period of his service except for the first six months when he was getting adjusted to the problems involved. In fact, the number of complaints per month from householders regarding the quality and standards of the company' s services are considerably lower than at any time in our prior experience. In other words, we feel that we have a competent contractor who does need assurance of the continuation of his contract in order to maintain a high level of equipment for the service of the people of the City, and that the price structure which the City pays to him under the contract is in fact very favorable in comparison to other cities in Orange County. A comparison of the prices paid by other cities to their contractors is not attached hereto, but has been distributed to the Council. Carl J Thornton City Manager Attachments e. MEMORANDUM rE, To: Citi Manager Date_March 10, 1969 From: . Assistant to City Manager Subject: AGREEMENTS WITH SANTA ANA COMMERCIAL COMPANY FOR GARBAGE AND RUBBISH DISPOSAL On October 6, 1952 an agreement was made between the City of Santa Ana and Adam Schleining, Jr. and Rudolph L. Odne doing business as Santa Ana Commercial Company. The frequency of garbage collection was daily except Sunday in the commercial areas and twice each week in the residential areas with the exception that rubbish was to be collected once each week in the residential districts. Payment by the City was on the basis of 85Q per active water meter. No date of expiration was stated in the agreement. An agreement made March 7, 1955 extended the agreement dated March 6, 1952 for a period of four years from November 1, 1956. On May 15, 1956 Santa Ana Commercial Company applied for a 54 increase per water meter. This request was to meet in part added operational expenditures incurred when the City dump was closed and the hauling distance was increased an additional six miles. On September 4, 1956 a modified agreement was entered into granting an increase of 54 per active water meter bringing the total to 904 per month, On May 4, 1959 an agreement was entered into for the extension of the service area for newly annexed territory. Such newly annexed territory was agreed to contain 3, 465 buildings or service units, and that the City would pay 904 per month per each service unit. On December 31, 1959 an agreement was entered into amending prior agreements to provide for an increase in unit charge to the City from 904 to 954 per unit effective January 1, 1960, City Manager Page 2 On. October 3, 1960 a new complete agreement was entered into with the Santa Ana Commercial Company, Inc. for a period of three years beginning November 1, 1960 with payment by the City in the amount of $1.00 per active water meter per month in addition to the num- ber of non-metered units in the newly annexed areas. On February 4, 1963 the City Council reduced refuse collection in residential areas from twice to once a week as of March 1, 1963. On June 17, 1963 the City Council authorized the Purchasing Agent to advertise for refuse collection services. The City Council on July 1, 1963 received reports of proposals tabulated as follows: Warren W. Jaycox $1.15 Athens Disposal Company 1.10 Santa. Ana. Commercial Company, Inc. 1.03 Andrew V. Hohn .85 Great Western Reclamation Company .78 . On August 5, 1963 the City Council received the City Manager' s evaluation of the above three lowest proposals submitted for the collection of garbage and refuse for the City of Santa Ana in which he stated that all of the companies are adequately financed, have sufficient experience, have adequate performance bonding capacities, present no danger of introducing criminal elements, present no problem for control or willingness to meet standards of operation, and have provided adequate insurance of acceptable equipment. The City Manager further recommended that the con- tract be awarded to Great Western Reclamation Company. This recommendation was adopted by the City Council. COMPENSATION READJUSTMENT On the first day of each November and May of each succeeding year the contract unit price shall be adjusted to reflect the percentage change in the Consumers Price Index (1957-59 base) Los Angeles area, published by the U.S. Department of Labor as indicated by the index figure most recently published prior to the first day of June and January preceding each of the above listed dates respec- tively. The adjustment shall be completed by using the figure of City Manager " Page 3 108.0 as equal to 100 and increases or decreases in the contract unit price shall be l per unit for each increase or decrease of one full percentage point from the base of 108.0. Based on the above compensation readjustment method changes to the original agreement price per unit have been as follows: DATE UNIT COST 1 Nov 1964 $0.79 1 May 1965 0.81 1 Nov 1965 0.82 1 May 1966 0.82 1 Nov 1966 0.83 1 May 1967 0.85 1 Nov 1967 0.86 1 May 1968 0.89 1 Nov 1968 0.89 1 May 1969 0.93 G. David Tayco Assistant to City Manager ml June 3, 1963 308 City Hall Honorable City Council City Hail Santa Ana. California OPINION NO. 235 Rem Contracting for Garbage And Trash Collection and Disposal Gentlemen: n: T have been asked to submit an opinion regarding the necessity for competitive bidding in the awaxdi$.e of any contract far the collection and disposal of trash and garbage within the City. Some of you nay recall that I orally stated th,:re was a fairly recent cane cu this point in which the Supreme Court held that on entering into auth a contract the award must be made to the lowest and best bidder even though under the language of the contract the payment for the service was made by the householder directly to the contractor and no city tax fund,* were being expended. My off-hand opinion at that time was that we would probably be required now to fellow the saute procedure. Mayos Mall asked me to furnish a written opinion to the Council on this subject, The case that I had in mind in the above-referenced oral state- ment was ." . t. ,.,.5 . :d' , w .t, i �. 'it _k�tF,.a3 ' ! .,! _ . .:. � sem. company decided by the Supraae Court of this State October 2, 1959. 52 C. 2d 708, 344 P. 24 289. The facts in this case were involved and difficult to state briefly. with some asmaiesion. they are: The Irvington Sanitation District had let an exclusive contract to the plaintiff and the entire district was later included within the boundaries of the City of Fremont when that city was incorporated. `h,ia District was then combined: with a new district including other territory. The City of Fr ant let an exclusive contract with the defendant under a franchise .procedure, but included that any territory within the city which was then being served by a valid existing contract would be excluded. Litigation occurs 1. between the two disposal companies. The question was whether or not the contract was Honorable City C,r.0 cil June 3, 1963 -2- a valid contract, $6515.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires sanitary districts to let contracts for eny work over 42,500.000 after, two published notices inviting bids, to the lowest responsible bidder, Irvington had published one notice inviting bits and had received two bids whereunder the contractor would collect his fo.-:, frac© the householders. Irvington bad bid a payment of $10200,00 per year for the first five years and $1,800.00 for the second five years. The other bidder had bid a Payment of 42,250.00 a year to the District. Nevertheless the District entered into a contract with the bidder who would pay the District the smaller amount of money, The Supreme Court held that this contract was void for failure of the District to comply with the government statute. This is good law, but my reawaning was poor in the oral statement to you, The C t y of Santa Ana bid requireme ntsa are set forth in §421 of our Charter, as foliowsz Every contract involving more than 020000.00 for materials, supplies or equipment or for public works eenstzsuction shall be made to the lowest and h. at bidder after publication of notice calling for: bide. Public works; construction is defined as "a project for the erection or improvement of public buildings, streets, drains, sewers, ' rkss or playgrounds. ' Nowhere in our Charter language do we find anything so broad as is required fox sanitary districts that is "any work", fls 1952, when Santa Ana erg a. Fifth Class city, the 4th District court of Appeal decided the case of Da:' ye City eitakeeeeneue, and the Supreme Court denied a hearing on the matter» The Court there held that in the absence of a City charter or statutory requirements municipal contracts need not be let under competitive bidding. They then interpeeted the Fifth Class city language, which no longer applies, but which is very similar to our Charter provisions and are the requirements which ware used in drafting Charter 5421. , ;, n tee ja, 10$ +:.i.. 24 609, 239 P. 24 6560 has been cited many times but mostly as authority fox pleading practice, y do net find that this Santa Ana case has over been overruled, and in my oeiniee it is still gcod law. aur Charter language does not require the letting of a contract, the kind here consider to only by competitive bidding therefore, Gentlemen, the decision I believe is yours as to Whether or net to require published notice and competitive bidding or to let such a contract by negotiation. Respectfully ssu'bmitted, C/7772 k 11) / JQW K. COLW LL city Attorney JeC/fm