Monday, February 11, 2013

PMUA Reorg Tuesday

The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority will hold its annual reorganization Tuesday, naming officers for 2013 among other actions. The meeting is 6 p.m. at 127 Roosevelt Ave. See the agenda here.
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM

    By means of an OPRA request I received a copy of the Britton Industries, Inc. Agreement with the PMUA. By the terms of the Agreement the Agreement expires today, the day of the 2013 Reorganization Meeting.

    This Agreement retained " Britton to receive, accept and dispose of all brush, vegetative material and wood waste" form the Rock Avenue Transfer Station which is operated by the PMUA.

    Not only does the Agreement expire today, but at last report no agreement has been reached on the extension of the Agreement. And, if renewed what the cost of the removal of the vegetative waste would be. Exacerbating this situation are two events:

    1. There is a dispute over the terms of the expiring Agreement. The Agreement is conspicuously flawed. The Agreement provides that the contract for these services is to be provided at a cost not to exceed $29,000 per year and that Britton shall be paid at a rate of $2,408 per month which would total the $29,000 at year end.. HOWEVER, on the heels of these provisions, the Agreement establishes unit prices for the removal of the material based on the volume removed. A clear conflict of payment terms.

    Does therefore the contract mean that Britton is required to cease operation when the volume removed multiplied by the unit price reacehs $29,000? Most of the PMUA contracts have a similar " cost not to exceed "provision and when the amount of the services reaches the "not to exceed" horizon the PMUA issues a supplemental purchase order to cover the additional costs.. A few addition words could have avoided the dispute, such as, "Should the volume of vegetative waste cause the cost to exceed $29,000 as determined from the unit prices Britton shall have the obligation to continue to remove the excess volume at no cost to the PMUA". To insure that the PMUA received a credit if the Britton charge, based on unit prices did not exceed $29,00 another sentence would have been required. Perhaps, " At the year end should the volume of vegetative waste which has been removed by Britton multiplied by the unit price for removal aggregate to less than $29,000 then Britton shall within 30 days refund to the PMUA the overpayment". This inability to unambiguously define the terms of payment has resulted in the on going dispute. My own interpretation of the Agreement is that Britton has the stronger position.

    2. The greater liability may lie ahead. The PMUA, in addition to the dispute described above, sold its services going forward for a period of 1 year to neighboring communities for a fixed unit price. . It remains to be seen whether the PMUA can contract for the removal of the collected vegetative waste at a rate less than the amount it is being paid to receive the vegetative waste? Whether the PMUA can extricate itself from this blunder or not remains to be seen. The fact that the blunder occurred is sad commentary on the intellectual oversight of the host of attorneys employed by, and surrounding them, as well as that of the Commissioners whose oversight failed.

    Tonight's "Reorganization" meeting will be interesting to observe. The Britton debacle may not even be discussed. Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)