Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Dr. Osman M. Aly <br />May 13, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />3. A new contract was not entered Into by October 1, 1992. (A new contract <br />was in fact entered Into dated October 1, 1993.) <br /> <br />4. Since the Council specifically authorized the Cost of Service rate only If a <br />new contract was signed by October 1, 1992, and in fact no new contract <br />was signed by that date, that special Cost of Service provision expired. <br />Therefore, Paris is enlltled to payments pursuant to the agreed rate <br />methodology in the 1988 contract. <br /> <br />5. Any reasons for delay In signing a new contract past the October 1, 1992 <br />expiration date are Irrelevant since Campbell representatives knew of the <br />expiration date and could have addressed the Council requesting an <br />extension of the Cost of Service rate. For whatever reasons, Campbell <br />chose not to address the Council and request an extension. <br /> <br />6. Since the governing body of Paris Q.e., the Council) did not amend or <br />extend the Cost of Service rate provision, and the requirements of the <br />Council's Cost of Service agreement were not met, the 1988 contract <br />governs the payments from Campbell for the 1991/92 and 1992/93 period. <br /> <br />7. CampbeR was billed and paId $2,444,796.37 versus their obligation under <br />the 1988 contract of $2,540,886.84; Campbell now owes Paris the difference <br />of $96,090.47. <br /> <br />CamDbell's position <br /> <br />1. The delay In signing the new contract was not solely the fault of either of the <br />parties; Campbell should not be penalized for famng to have a new contract <br />signed by the October 1, 1992 expirallon date of the Cost of Service <br />provision since the City Is also at fault for the delay. <br /> <br />2. Even though the Council only approved the Cost of Service rate <br />methodology ~ntingent upon signing a new contract by October 1,1992, <br />a.new contract was In fact agreed to on October 1, 1993 evidencing good <br />intentions in negollatlng a new contract. <br /> <br />3. Because Campbell acted in good faith and ultimately signed a new contract, <br />the Cost of Service rate methodology should apply for the entire 1991/92 <br />and 1992/93 timeframe. <br /> <br />4. The Paris staff should use the Cost of Service methodology for the entire <br />period although the CouncIl has not authorized them to do so. <br /> <br />5. The splrft of good feIth should govern rather than the legal authorization of <br />the CouncIl. <br />