From:                                         Hupy, Craig

Sent:                                           Friday, June 17, 2016 3:03 PM

To:                                               Praschan, Marti; Gomes, Christina

Cc:                                               Slotten, Cresson

Subject:                                     FW: Baler

 

 

 

From: Crawford, Tom
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:41 PM
To: Hupy, Craig
Subject: RE: Baler

 

Approved for emergency PO.  Please return to Council for this at next available meeting.

 

Thanks,

Tom

 

From: Hupy, Craig
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 10:38 AM
To: 'David Eisner'; Crawford, Tom
Cc: Mike Brennan
Subject: RE: Baler

 

In response to the baler portion of your e-mail below, the City can agree in principle to the terms.  I will take this e-mail as the basis for going forward and seeking emergency authorization from interim City Administrator Tom Crawford.  It would be our intent to seek City Council approval on July 7, 2016 to make the funding available.  Please inform us of the details on specific costs when you have them available.  We will follow up with a memo of understanding for both parties to sign.

 

The second portion of your email is welcomed.  The proposal  moves in a direction toward resolving contract issues.   One of the City’s concerns which is not yet addressed, is the through put capacity of the facility. What is the hourly rate material can be received so as not to overload the tip floor or  other capacities to process?  As the terms outlined are of wider implications, it appropriate that the concepts be included in any pending redraft of the contract.

 

Of personal curiosity, what make and model baler is being considered?

 

From: David Eisner [mailto:David.Eisner@recommunity.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:28 PM
To: Crawford, Tom
Cc: Hupy, Craig; Mike Brennan
Subject: Baler

 

Tom,

Thanks for your call earlier.  As discussed, here is the proposal we had been working on for the baler:

 

·         Total costs approximately $550,000

·         Ann Arbor funds $110,000, ReCommunity fund $440,000

o   Ongoing repairs over $4,500 split 20/80% (Ann Arbor /ReCommunity)

o   Repairs under $4,500 paid 100% by ReCommunity

·         Annual review of volumes will adjust reimbursement % of over $4,500 repairs accordingly based on volume split

·         ReCommunity amortizes $440,000 over 10 years, City has obligation to purchase for the un-amortized amount at the termination of agreement less any capital reimbursements made if funds become available.

 

We would propose the following simultaneous modifications to the Agreement

 

·         City pays ReCommunity all net negative and hold back amounts on invoices through 5/31/16

·         ReCommunity will eliminate the net negative payment on third party tons as City obligation

·         Fixed adjustment for living wage calculation of $14.17/ton, to be adjusted annually.  ReCommunity will certify that these obligations are paid.

·         Increase Capital Fund contributions:

o   Recommunity-$6 from $4 on all tons

o   Ann Arbor- $4 from $2 on City tons

 

As I mentioned, we appreciate the 80/20 split and we are open to discussing any of the ancillary points regarding buyout, etc.

 

Regards,

 

David Eisner
CFO
ReCommunity Inc
o 704.697.2039 | m 704.607.0849
www.recommunity.com


cid:image001.gif@01CCA099.7014BEF0

This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses.