HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2589 - Amendment To Agreement - EPR Inc - Wate Processing Service - 05/28/1987Resolution#2589
May 28, 1987
Agenda Item #28
WHEREAS, Environmental Protection Resources of Lubbock, Inc., has
requested that their obligation to apply for all necessary construction
permits not later than ninety (90) days after the execution of the Waste
Processing Services Contract (executed February 26, 1987) be extended by
sixty (60) days' and
WHE'REA.S, the City Council of the City of Lubbock believes that the
requested extension is appropriate under the circumstances; and
WHEREAS, this extension should best be accomplished by amendment to
the Waste Processing Services Contract; NOW THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
SECTION 1. THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby
authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of
Lubbock a First Amendment to the Waste Processing Services Contract
(dated February 26, 1987), which contract is attached as Exhibit "Cu to
Lease Agreement dated February 26, 1987, and which First Amendment is at-
tached herewith and which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council
and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a
part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail upon
execution.
SECTION 2. THAT this first amendment to the said Waste Processing
Services Contract shall never in any manner whatsoever be constructed as
affecting any other changes in the rights, obligations and duties by and
between the City of Lubbock and Environmental Protection Resources of
Lubbock, Inc., arising from instruments executed by and between the par-
ties on February 26, 1987, other than the one extension of construction
permit application time specifically defined in the said First Amendment.
Passed by the City Council this 28th day of &yj 1987.
Boyd, City
8 W -S-5 I
Bob Cass, Deputy City Manager
B. C. MCMINN, MAYOR
�C//
Resolution #2589
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK §
FIRST AMENDMENT
WASTE PROCESSING SERVICES CONTRACT
(EXHIBIT "C" TO LEASE AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1987)
WHEREAS, a Waste Processing Services Contract was made and
entered into by an between the City of Lubbock and Environmental
Protection Resources of Lubbock, Inc. (hereinafter called EPR);
and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sec. 2.1 of said contract EPR
was required to apply for all necessary construction permits not
later than ninety (90) days after the execution of said contract;
and,
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of the City Council
of the City of Lubbock, Texas, that a sixty (60) day extension of
time within which to apply for all such necessary construction
permits would be appropriate and justified under the explanations
of the request for such extension by EPR and would not work to
the detriment of the City of Lubbock; NOW THEREFORE:
It is accordingly AGREED by and between the City of Lubbock,
Texas, and the Environmental Protection Resources of Lubbock,
Inc., that the provisions of Section 2.1, Waste Processing
Services Contract, dated February 26, 1987, to the extent same
specify a ninety (90) day period for application for all
necessary construction permits, should be and is hereby amended
and modified to hereafter read and allow for a one hundred fifty
(150) day period after the date of said contract within which to
apply for -all necessary construction permits.
This extension granted nor the resultant modification to the
contract shall never in any manner whatsoever be construed as
affecting any other changes in the existing obligations between
the parties arising under the Waste Processing Services Contract
or any other contracts or agreements between the parties.
This amendment shall be attached to and made a part of
Exhibit "C" to the Lease Agreement dated February 26, 1987, prior
to recordation of such Lease Agreement in Lubbock County, Texas.
r' r-!
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First
Amendment as of the 28th day of May, 1987.
CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS
C `
BY:
. C.
McMINN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
-City ecretary
'APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ivil Trial Attorney
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESOURCES
OF LUBBOCK, INC.
BY:
Gary H. .K pier, P ident
M=
CNN
■
MINE
■
[9
8
Al
■
■
r■
■■
cNIMM■
FMMM■
No Text
■NOMEMEMEME■
MOMMEMEME
MEMEMEMEN
■■
■E■
■EMEMEMEMENOMME■
May 13, 1987
Mr. Bob Cass
City of Lubbock
1625 13th St., Suite 201
Lubbock, Texas 79401
Dear Bob:
This letter pertains to our contractual obligation (see Section
2.1 of the executed Waste Processing Services Contract) to have
applied for all necessary permits within ninety days after
execution of the contracts. This date would be May 27, 1987. I
was originally told by Black & Veatch that ninety days would be
adequate for the preparation of all applications.
Unfortunately, EPR could not give Black & Veatch official notice
to proceed until the inducement resolution on the project had
been passed by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority. Their
Board schedule delayed the resolution being passed until March
12. Any project costs incurred prior to an inducement
resolution would not be recoverable from bond proceeds. This is
obviously why we needed to wait until after the resolution to
allow Black & Veatch to begin.
The permit and design engineers have had extensive meetings with
the appropriate people in Austin. They have also done a great
portion of the plant design. You would be extremely pleased
with the progress that is being made. Permit applications,
though not totally complete, could be submitted by the
contractual deadline if an extension could not be granted.
However, this would do very little to enhance our position with
the agencies in Austin, and would probably result in a
permitting delay.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESOURCES, INC.
ONE RIVERWAY, SUITE 1770 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 713/626-5691
Bob Cass
May 13, 1987
Page 2
Therefore, I am requesting an extension of our contractual
obligation for permit applications. Black & Veatch feels that
an additional thirty days would be adequate. I would suggest a
60-90 day extension just to be conservative and avoid this
problem in the future.
I am uncertain what form this extension should have, i.e.,
simple letter agreement signed by the Mayor, formal contract
amendment approved by City Council, etc. Jim Brewster should
have some ideas on this matter.
Please review this request and inform me at your convenience of
your desired course of action.
Sincerely,
A�4
Gary H. Kappler
President
GHK/maw
Encls.