Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Klamath County weighs Dry Creek providerpricing changes; directs staff to seek written response and begin RFP if terms unacceptable
Summary
Klamath County commissioners discussed a rate proposal from the county—s Dry Creek waste/transfer provider and instructed staff to seek a written response and prepare an RFP if the provider would not accept the county—s terms.
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Klamath County commissioners discussed a rate proposal from the county—s Dry Creek waste/transfer provider and instructed staff to seek a written response and prepare an RFP if the provider would not accept the county—s terms.
Stephanie of the county Development Department summarized the provider—s updated offer: "they brought that down, to 10.67%, which equates to, actually, $6.89 per ton increase over what we're doing right now. But to make that work, they're asking to increase the CPI. Right now, we're doing 85% of the CPI every July, and they wanna increase that to 100%." Stephanie also explained the provider proposed removing the existing 4% cap on annual increases; staff noted the cap had been exceeded twice in the last five years and that keeping the 4% cap was important to the county.
Staff presented a fee component breakdown the provider supplied. In staff's spreadsheet the transfer portion of the requested increase was shown as about $2.89 and the transport portion about $2.68; the gate (service) component was shown around $36 with additional increments in the provider—s proposal. Staff also said the provider offered an alternate flat $10-per-ton increase as a fallback (staff described that alternative as a larger percentage increase overall).
Commissioners and staff reviewed contract timing and continuity. Staff noted the current agreement contains extension language and that the contract expires Dec. 31; prior short extensions had been used and staff said the county has written language to prevent the provider from leaving the county without service during any procurement process.
Several commissioners expressed skepticism about accepting the provider—s suggested removal of the cap and full 100% CPI pass-through and said they preferred an RFP to protect taxpayers if the provider would not negotiate to retain 85% CPI and the 4% cap. The board directed staff to inform the provider that the county expects to retain an 85% CPI linkage and a 4% cap and to request a written response by Nov. 10. If the provider will not accept those terms, staff were told to initiate an RFP process simultaneously.
The record does not show a formal vote adopting a specific contract amendment; the transcript records discussion and a board direction to staff as described above.

