The Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority will hold a special meeting at 4 p.m.on Monday, July 1, at 127 Roosevelt Avenue. Agenda items are a summer intern program and possible award of a contract for vegetative waste services.
The PMUA rejected three bids in May for vegetative waste disposal. It is an important part of the authority's operation now that it has contracts with neighboring municipalities to accept brush, leaves and plant debris at the Rock Avenue transfer station. The contract up for discussion would cover removal to a final disposal site.
According to minutes from the May meeting, PMUA staff rejected all bids at that time in order to refine specifications and rates for various kinds of vegetative waste.
The PMUA previously had a contract with a vender that took all vegetative waste at a flat rate per month. The vender balked when tonnage increased dramatically after the Oct. 29 storm that downed many trees. The storm coincided with the launching of the authority's first program to attract outside revenue by offering to accept vegetative waste at the transfer station, and the increased volume taxed the station's capacity.
To see more background on the issue, see minutes of a Jan. 29 special PMUA meeting here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know it's an acceptable variant, but seeing "vendor" spelled as "vender" looks wrong to me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe being a subscriber to The New Yorker for fifty years has clouded my mind - that's their usage. I think the Courier News was doing the same at one point. I prefer "vendor" but some style demon took over my mind while blogging. There's a new Associated Press style book out. Maybe I'll get it and just follow AP style.
DeleteI believe that vender is the preferred* American Standard Dictionary spelling, Either is OK.
Delete* "prefered" is listed as the preferred American Standard spelling.
While it is true that Sandy precipitated the crisis the seeds of failure had been sown. The contract between the PMUA and Britton Industries stipulated that Britton would be paid a specified sum each month for the removal of vegetative waste. The amount of waste which Britton was obliged to remove was not specified! This is serious omission. If you were offered a job and the prospective employer said that he would pay you $1,000 per month without any further description, logically your reply would be, "What days and hours am I to work?
ReplyDeleteThis flaw was enlarged by the fact that following this vague provision there appeared a unit price for the removal of quantities of waste. There is no description of how the unit price was to be applied? What is the purpose of of a unit price if the monthly fee paid to Britton was all inclusive? When the storm vastly enlarged the quantity that Britton apparently had presumed it would remove Britton cried "Uncle', and terminated their services. Indeed, the imperfections in the contract gave Britton leverage.to withdraw.
The Britton contract expired in March 2013. With full knowledge of this the PMUA entered into contracts with 4 other communities for fixed unit prices prior to the expiration of the Britton contract without definitively knowing what the cost of removing the collected material would be after March of 2013. The new contracts extend beyond March 2013. The PMUA was shooting dice under the watchful eyes of a host of their attorneys and financial officers.
During the last 5 months the PMUA has been paying several contractors to remove both the vegetative waste accumulated from the storm,and the additional vegetative waste which it is receiving under the provisions of the new contracts with our neighbors. Whether the PMUA will make a profit, or absorb a loss, on these contracts depends on the price they will pay for the continued removal of the vegetative waste. Based on the information accumulated they appear to be awash in red ink at this point in time .It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Bill Kruse