HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-2013 - Update on Solid Waste InterlocalItem No. 3(c)(1) @
March 25, 2013
X Action
X Discussion
X Information
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND RESTATED
SOLID WASTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING
COUNTY
STAFF CONTACT: Joyce Nichols, CMO, 452-4225
Sheida Sahandy, CMO, 452-6168
Kate Berens, City Attorney's Office, 452-4616
POLICY ISSUE: King County has proposed an amended and restated solid
waste interlocal agreement which extends the termination date
of the City's current solid waste agreement from 2028 to 2040
(the "Amended and Restated IL This extension allows the
County to procure long-term financing for capital improvements
to the solid waste transfer system.
NEEDED FROM
COUNCIL Staff is seeking direction from Council regarding whether or not
the City will execute the Proposed ILA by the County deadline of
April 30, 2013.
BACKGROUND:
Bellevue's current Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement with the County became effective
on July 1, 1988 (the "l 988 ILA") and, unless the City enters into the Amended and
Restated ILA, it will remain in full force and effect until June 30, 2028. King County
would continue to provide services through 2040 if the City signs the Amended and
Restated ILA. Staff briefed Council on the key terms of the Amended and Restated
ILA on January 28, 2013 and those materials, including the relevant attachments, are
provided as Attachment 1. Bellevue has not yet provided any indication of intent to King
County regarding the Amended and Restated ILA.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The options available to the City at this time are to (1) to remain with the 1988.ILA and, as
the expiration nears, negotiate and structure transfer and disposal services based on
the best available options at that time or (2) sign the Amended and Restated ILA.
facility and states further that such direct costs include wear and tear on infrastructure including
roads.
Next Steps
• If Council believes it has enough information to respond to King County's "Non -Binding
Statement of Interest in Signing an Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement," provided as Attachment G, staff can arrange for Council's response to be
provided to the County by the January 31, 2013 deadline.
• Depending on Council comments, questions and direction, staff can return with
additional information and responses at the next scheduled Regional Issues Study
Session on February 25. The County's deadline for a final executed Proposed ILA is
April 30, 2013.
ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Available on request.
City of Bellevue
Regional Solid Waste Management Interest Statement
July 2011
Background
The King County Solid Waste Division (SWD) is moving forward on several initiatives related to
the regional solid waste system that will have a direct impact on Bellevue residents and
businesses. These initiatives include implementation of the transfer station upgrade portion of
the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export System Plan; plans to issue long-term debt to
finance the transfer system upgrades, and discussions with cities on amending or extending the
existing interlocal agreement (ILA). If implemented, these changes could significantly impact
rates and costs as well as the County's waste disposal services, practices, facilities and
operations.
The County's actions have potential significant impacts to customer cities and raise several
financial and policy issues.
The County's relationship with cities is governed by the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement, the
Forum Interlocal Agreement, the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan,
and the King County Charter that establishes the Regional Policy Committee.
Given the current regional solid waste environment, the City Council adopts the following
guiding principles and recognizes that these principles may need to be amended by Council
from time to time as circumstances require.
Principles
• a
Value for Ratepayers. Solid waste transfer and disposal policies, services, practices.,
facilities and operations within the County should be governed and managed so that
current and future ratepayers are provided cost-effective services during the period that
solid waste transfer and waste disposal services are provided to the City by King County.
Costs and impacts of various services and capital investment financing must be shared
with cities in a clear and transparent manner.
• Cost Control Measures: King County and the King County Solid Waste Division must
control all of the agency's operating, overhead and capital expenses to provide a cost
structure that is sustainable over time. Cost control strategies should include potential
reduction of overhead and internal service charges and exploration of alternative service
delivery models.
• Performance Measurement: The King County Solid Waste Division should continue
to refine its performance measures for each business line/service area and report
annually on the agency's performance towards achieving these measures. Performance
measures should include comparisons with peer solid waste management operations
and/or organizations. The achievement of performance measures should be used as the
basis for decision -making for future operational and service delivery changes.
• Use of Ratepayer Funds: Financial and debt issuance policies must incorporate
provisions that produce cost-effective services to City ratepayers. These policies must
cost-effective financing for a post -Cedar Hills disposal option. Much like the current
situation, once a significant investment is required in order to identify, construct and
implement a replacement to the Cedar Hill Landfill, there will be rate pressure to extend
the term of the ILA beyond 2040 to allow for longer -term financing. It is difficult to
predict now the potential terms and tradeoffs that will be associated with this future
extension without knowing the replacement technology, its useful life, and
magnitude of the capital investment that might be required.
• While the Amended and Restated ILA does not provide any indemnification from
liability, it creates a commitment to use system revenues to pay environmental
contamination clean-up costs, which may limit individual jurisdictions' exposure to
clean-up costs. The Amended and Restated ILA requires only that the County
establish. a shared reserve, using solid waste revenues from ratepayers, to be
used in the event of certain environmental liabilities. It is not clear what kind of
rate impacts, if any, the establishment of the reserve will have.
• It contractually solidifies the right of the County to charge rent for the use of
Cedar Hills Landfill by the County's Solid Waste Division.
• It provides avenues for continued advisory input from the Cities.
• It allows no early termination for any reason.
Next Steps
• As directed by Council, staff will take direction regarding whether or not to
arrange for the execution of the Amended and Restated ILA, or to return to
answer any remaining questions.
ALTERNATIVES:
• Direct staff as to whether or not the City will execute the Amended and
Restated I LA.
• Direct staff to return with more information.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Regional Solid Waste Agenda Memo dated January 28, 2013 (with 97
pages of attachments available on request).
ATTACHMENT I
Action
X Discussion
X Information
STAFF CONTACT:
January 28, 2013 Council Briefing
Item No. 3(f)(1)(i)
January 28, 2013
PROPOSED AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Joyce Nichols, CMO, 452-4225; Sheida Sahandy, CMO, 452-6168;
Kate Berens, City Attorney's Office, 452-4616
POLICY ISSUE: King County has proposed an amended and restated solid waste
interlocal agreement which extends the termination date of the City's
current solid waste agreement from 2028 to 2040 (the "Proposed ILA").
This extension allows the County to procure long-term financing for
capital improvements to the solid waste system.
NEEDED FROM
COUNCIL No formal Council action is required at this time but the County has
requested a Non -Binding Statement of Interest by January 31, 2013
indicating whether or not Bellevue intends to sign the Proposed ILA.
The County has asked the Cities to execute the Proposed ILA by April
30,2013.
jA jMMZj9j1Vkya
Solid waste interlocal agreements (ILAs) with King County serve multiple functions. They
articulate the relative responsibilities of the City and the County in providing solid waste disposal
services (the City has historically arranged for local collection services through separate
contracts with private providers). The ILAs also establish King County as the solid waste
comprehensive planning authority for the County and the cities, recognize the County as the
party authorized to set disposal fees for the system, and require that the County provide and
manage facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid waste. The ILAs commit the cities to use
the County's services exclusively for disposal of all acceptable solid waste for the duration of the
agreement. Pursuant to existing agreements, King County provides solid waste disposal
services for all incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County with the exception, of the
cities of Seattle and Milton.
In 2007, the County approved the Transfer System and Waste Export Plan. In order to finance
the implementation of that plan, the County is seeking to issue long term bonds secured by an.
extended solid waste agreement. Over the course of the last two years, the County has been
meeting with Cities to negotiate an extended ILA to serve this purpose. The longer bonding
Based on information provided by King County, should Bellevue stay with the Existing ILA,
ratepayers could expect to see an increase in rates of approximately $7/ton - $9/ton between
the years of 2015 and 2028 solely as a result of the front -loading of the long-term debt. This
would translate to an increase for the typical Bellevue household of between 28 cents
(1.5%) — 36 cents (1.9%) on monthly bills, resulting in an average monthly bill of $19.26 -
$19.34, respectively, as opposed to the current average of $18.98. The County's estimates
could change based on shifts in interest rates, costs, changing economic conditions or other
factors which may or may not be within the control of the County. These increases could be on
top of other increases the County may need to impose in order to, for example, set up reserves
or otherwise adjust its financial systems.
Lastly, to the extent the Proposed ILA contains any new terms that are favorable to the cities,
those not signing the Proposed ILA will not benefit from those terms. New terms contained in
the Proposed ILA are described in Attachment B, with some further details provided below in
"Option 2".
Option 2 — Sign Proposed ILA, which obligates the City through 2040
Council's alternative option is to enter into the Proposed ILA, which would secure solid waste
disposal and planning services from the County through 2040. Below are some additional
details and perspectives about key terms in the Proposed ILA.
Term
The proposed term extends beyond the anticipated closure date of the Cedar Hills Landfill,
which is conservatively estimated to be 2025. The Proposed ILA would therefore bind the. City,
for approximately 15 years — through 2040 — to exclusively make use of services for which there
is currently no identified business model or rate scenario, and under a contract that contains no
early termination provision. King County has also stated that an additional ILA extension is likely
to be necessary during the term of the Proposed ILA in -order to fund a cost-effective long term
disposal solution after the closure of Cedar Hills.
Environmental Liability
A fundamental addition to the Proposed ILA is the notion that "system rates pay for system
liabilities." Building on that principle, with respect to potential environmental liability, King County
agrees in the Proposed ILA to take certain steps to increase the likelihood that designated funds
could be available to pay for environmental liabilities, should they arise. This mechanism will
not protect any entity from a finding of environmental liability - it is only intended to provide
potential funding sources before resorting to the general funds of King County and the Cities.
In the Proposed ILA, the County agrees to use system rates to (1) procure environmental
liability insurance if it is available under commercially reasonable terms, (2) create a reserve
account (the rate of accrual and adequacy of which is determined by the County with
consultation with the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee ("MSWAC")), and (3)
establish a financial plan, including rate adjustments, if necessary to recover additional funds for
payment of environmental liability claims remaining unpaid by insurance and reserves. The
Proposed ILA states that, to the extent these funds are used, they will be used in a way that
pays off the environmental liabilities of the parties in an equitable manner. However, no process
is articulated for access, use, and disbursement of funds or the exact manner of crediting
expenditures to parties to offset liabilities relative to one -another.
Each option has pros and cons, as described in detail below. On the most basic level,
Council's decision may rest on which attributes the City values more: (1) having flexibility
and self-determination over services and costs beyond 2028, but with the associated
risks of finding favorable service delivery options at that time, or (2) having certainty
about the identity of the service provider through 2040, but no direct control over
pricing and service models for an extended period of time.
Option I Remain with the 1988 ILA, which terminates in 2028
Under this option, the City retains the right and flexibility to pursue other service delivery
alternatives after 2028. While it is too early to commit to any such alternatives, staff has
engaged in exploratory conversations with other service providers and a number of alternative
scenarios have been discussed. Options for future consideration could include:
• engaging a private contractor (possibly the one providing collection services at that
time) to use existing solid waste and recycling transfer facilities (possibly under
contract with King County) and long -hauling waste to disposal facilities outside the
County,
• building solid waste/recycling transfer facilities and contracting for management and
disposal services with a private contractor, or
• staying with the King County system if allowed to do so at that time
The current and future value of this flexibility to determine disposal solutions after 2028 has to
be considered in light of, and balanced against, potential impacts of not entering into the
Amended and Restated ILA. King County has indicated that ratepayers in non -extending cities
would experience rate increases in order to compensate for those cities' early exit from bond
repayment obligations. No process, right to revise or right to terminate is provided to the City
with respect to the setting of the differential rates. Rate setting authority is within the exclusive
purview of King County. Accordingly, the City itself would not have a right of recourse in the
event it disagrees with the magnitude of the rate increases being imposed on Bellevue
ratepayers as a result of the City's decision not to execute the Amended and Restated ILA.
Other impacts of not executing the Amended and Restated ILA may include reconsideration by
King County of the extent and timing of the proposed upgrades to the Factoria Transfer Station.
Lastly, to the, extent the Amended and Restated ILA contains any new terms that are favorable
to the cities, those not signing the Amended and Restated ILA will not benefit from those terms.
New terms contained in the Amended and Restated ILA are described in Attachment B of the
January 28 briefing (Attachment 1-B).
Option 2 Sign the Proposed ILA, which obligates the City through 2040
Council's alternative option is to enter into the Amended and Restated ILA, which would secure
solid waste disposal and planning services from the County through 2040. Below is a
summary of key issues that were described in greater detail on January 28:
• The term of Amended and Restated ILA extends beyond the anticipated closure
date of the Cedar Hills landfill and it is anticipated that the Amended and
Restated ILA will need to be extended, during its term, in order to provide
include consideration of how long-term debt incurred to pay for such services and other
significant factors will impact the establishment of rates for the services. Decisions
regarding the use of ratepayer funds shall be made in a transparent manner.
• Governance Structure: Governance of the regional solid waste system should include
an effective partnership with King County and other cities.' The ILAs should include a
specific contractual role for cities to review and approve major system changes, major
financial decisions and future system direction (e.g., waste export and potential waste -
to -energy systems). A process for ensuring city participation at these key mileposts will
ensure that cities have a voice in decisions that they must pay for. Provisions for
establishing weighted voting should also be explored. Cities who are members of the
regional system should have direct representation on the Regional Policy Committee or
other policy -making body composed of elected officials to advise the King County
Council.
• Rent Payments to the County"s General Fund: A process should be developed to
transition out of rent payments from the Solid Waste Fund to the County's General Fund
for rent on the Cedar Hills Landfill. If the County transitions out of rent payments
savings from the rent reduction should be used to reduce rates.
• Future Capital Investments: Recognizing that transfer stations are constructed with
a 40- to 50-year facility life, decisions about debt issuance to fund such facilities should
be made in a manner that leads to the lowest, cost-effective and stable rates to solid
waste system ratepayers. King County should be encouraged to use cost-effectiveness
techniques, such as value engineering, in evaluating capital investments.
• Termination and Dispute Resolution: A process for cities to opt out of the regional
solid waste system at key decision points should be included in the ILA. The process
should provide flexibility for cities to make decisions about future participation based on
changing conditions and costs. Termination costs to cities need to be described so that
cities opting to leave the system know what and how costs will be assessed. A system
for resolving disputes should also be part of a new ILA.
• Future Solid Waste Export and Disposal Options: A range of regional solid waste
export and disposal options, including privatization, should be explored and evaluated in
order to obtain the best value for the ratepayers, regardless of current legislative,
contractual or other constraints. Opportunities to reduce legal and financial risks for the
City, as well as risks resulting from unfavorable policy decisions, should be explored as
part of an analysis of privatization or other export and disposal options.
• Host City Mitigation: Cities that host solid waste transfer stations provide value to
the entire region and should be provided opportunities for meaningful participation and
influence in decisions regarding County transfer and disposal services. Opportunities for
compensation for host cities to mitigate transfer station impacts should be included in
the ILAs.
• Collaboration with City Partners: Collaboration and coordination with other cities
should be continued to, leverage resources and influence in negotiations with the
County.
period results in lower rate increases for the ratepayers, but higher total costs of financing due
to higher interest costs incurred.
Bellevue's current contract with the County became effective on July 1, 1988 and will remain in
full force and effect until June 30, 2028 (the "Existing ILA") unless the City enters into the
Proposed ILA.
Council's Regional Solid Waste Management Interest Statement, adopted in July 2011, is
provided as Attachment A for reference. The table in Attachment B provides a high-level
comparison of the terms contained in the two contracts. Attachment C provides Frequently
Asked Questions and Responses. Attachments D is a copy of the Proposed ILA, followed by
Attachment E, which is a marked copy showing the differences between the Existing ILA and
the Proposed ILA. In addition to these documents which, with the exception of the Interest
Statement, were provided by King County, Bellevue staff has provided below some additional
details and perspectives regarding key issues in the discussion of Council Options below.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Option 1 — Remain with the Existing ILA, which terminates in 2028
Council has the option to take no action and stay within the purview of the Existing ILA. A key
benefit of this option is that it would allow the City the flexibility to explore market opportunities
in anticipation of the expiration of the Existing ILA in 2028. The City may find alternative service
providers and structures that offer better value, more transparency and greater control to the
City. Examples might include:
• engaging a private contractor to use existing solid waste and recycling transfer facilities
in Seattle and long -hauling waste to disposal facilities outside the County, or
• building solid waste/recycling transfer facilities and contracting for management and
disposal services with a private contractor.
Staff's exploratory conversations with local industry experts suggest that, given the rapid
changes in the solid waste industry and technologies, it is likely that the City would have a
number of alternatives available to it at that time.
The current and future value of this increased flexibility has to be considered in light of the other
impacts, or potential impacts, of not entering the Proposed ILA. King County has indicated that
cities staying with the current contract can expect to see an increase in rates as a result of not
signing the Proposed ILA. According to County staff, the basis for this increase is that non -
extending cities need to pay, by the time the Existing ILA expires, their proportionate share of
the longer -term debt service payments that the system would be obligated to pay through 2040.
In other words, the County intends to recover from those ratepayers, by 2028, their
proportionate share of the debt payments that other system ratepayers will be paying through
2040 — even though the former would no longer be receiving services in the period between
2028 and 2040.
Although the County has indicated its intent to create different rate classes for customers in
cities that have elected to stay with their current contracts as compared to those that sign the
Proposed ILA, neither contract describes a process or mechanism for rate -setting generally, nor
for the establishment of these differential classes and rates. Those decisions will continue to be
solely within the County's authority.
Cities that do not enter into the Proposed ILA will not be beneficiaries of any insurance,
reserves or other fund set aside to pay for environmental liability pursuant to the Proposed ILA.
However, it is unclear how Bellevue ratepayers will be impacted by any financial policies set up
by the County to implement the requirements of the Proposed ILA.
Rates
The Proposed ILA is similar to the Existing ILA in that there is no agreed -upon mechanism for
the setting of rates. Accordingly, to the extent new activities are contemplated under the
Proposed ILA which would require funding through rate increases, such as payment for
environmental insurance, the accumulation of an environmental liability reserve fund, capital
improvements and the associated debt service, structuring of differential customer and rate
classes, etc., the magnitude, duration or timing of rate increases would be at the County's
discretion.
Cities have an opportunity to provide advisory feedback to the County through participation in
the MSWAC, but there are no contractual safeguard or limitations with respect to rate increases,
nor any triggers to allow renegotiation or early termination of the contract.
Rent for Cedar Hills Landfill
According to materials provided by King County, the County began leasing the Cedar Hills
Landfill from the State in 1960 and operated it through the 1980s using a mix of general fund
monies and solid waste fees. In 1983, the solid waste utility was formed as a self-sustaining
system funded primarily through tipping fees that were charged at the Cedar Hills Landfill. The
County was granted the landfill from the State in 1992 through a quit -claim deed and in
exchange for an indemnification against all liabilities. The County has deemed the Cedar Hills
Landfill an asset of its General Fund and, in 2004, began to charge the ratepayer -funded Solid
Waste Division rent for the use of that facility. The Proposed ILA memorializes this construct by
including language to that effect in the agreement. However, the New ILA specifically prohibits
the County from charging the Solid Waste Division for the use of any other transfer station
currently in use by the Solid Waste System, or for adopting that approach with respect to any
other asset acquired using Solid Waste Division revenues.
Governance
The MSWAC is an existing advisory committee consisting of city -appointed members (staff,
elected officials and consultants). It advises the King County Executive and Council, the
County's Solid Waste Division, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, the Solid Waste Interlocal
Forum and the Regional Policy Committee on all aspects of solid waste management and
planning. This body is now contractually memorialized in the Proposed ILA to continue in its
advisory capacity. It will continue to include representatives from any Cities in the solid waste
system, even those that do not sign the Proposed ILA. MSWAC is the forum through which the
parties will continue to discuss and seek to resolve issues and concerns relating to the solid
waste system. MSWAC's advisory responsibilities are enumerated in the Proposed ILA, and
include assisting in the development of alternatives and recommendations for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other plans governing the future of the
system, as well as reviewing and commenting upon County rate proposals and financial
policies.
MitigationL
The Proposed ILA recognizes that in accordance with RCW 36.58.080, a city is authorized to
charge the County to mitigate impacts directly attributable to a County -owned Solid Waste
COMPARISON OF MATERIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
-
w
CIT
z
'y
r
7. -
t
.r• ..
, 1r .
nC'.���'',( ,ikf��i,LsA=���e�",�,'iyW:�• ^V<i,-O;In�° 'n?sS,�l:rC"Fr,,3Y,1,ii�:j Fi1'ti t4�in`•"q,,".
;vr;,,
fk s} =r �r
,S..i1'_:^`.+�;e'n
Weekday- 7.00 a.m.
Y
�.
No time restrictions
•
Same as Ci ty
�:,?,9T;: �.'1ieV:�i-,Ar^i,-�'r�.`n`tto'Y�'':n�:�'nhxbliy?ti�"�'�•kr'.>�F:l,(f••,.i.:�: '�s rye i;"e'-?:�°7.5x:7�,t�','ty�T ;.,
-
7�f�."'„k�';f;,..},4:};F,S
';ca'•.*i'±in r,.s3,.rr4,:: y.4,�`1a2'i
m
6 • 00 •111•
;,t�-,`- ✓=:,
t'P;";f.^, r,J -i, rv.t4.Y"': �Gy'r•"-3'.t:.`.'•:- r+t. r.•:A:l'.`` i;," P.`"
.r=�,�
allowed for
Saturday a o
-v
,rS'u'rSrN.':.,j'r!„`, 'n`'j<J3)'.1iy �+',? ,yy.:4-j�i:`jt.ti.Y r• _ - �Y �'-hri,�4i.::i �., ;ti:'
•
inclement weather
:�,i•>:,'{:):kL'iY„r
r
,;'�,;,°t'�,:n . , �,'� ✓ . 4vy,.,Y;� :rx:a. •al•':E,,y; »hl .k 31`f: t�l', ,.yt .4,5 ;'
r,,y?9fS•'jSri .{ti4 fi;'��v�: 1tJ'x'7;�>r)r-'te,,'t,,�l<,^��;;j,±=,t;:2F�;,a,;"1;,:,��5%f::3'ii:ilp
'}..Fm.
No Charge for service
g
Published rate Exh.
Same as City
Al S"'jr,;r: •a:r!s�i`v ::1�, %i+iY�r�.' �:`�?' �N�S i.,i �E+;
'.1':n�'..�^I?,)ii%4.�y., ,r,�C'.r,•L^. �v�:�%,'.Yc ba��ir'?".. -. (�tF 1� '3':: Y,ctiai'w'ti}gS'�i:G }?f
{C.'•':".: "'�'{':,; C...�'� i¢'�;„i':ti .4:f, .�a,a'u :i`cr,.sls, s=fb`:y�":C, .,?,�,'.
�} �> s
Mandates contractor
Mandates contractor
Same as City
er, f '3,
N'n1,. x� (%."'3,f.,-
n:yi.:,,'ui„''sa,¢','c�ri't;r,,'':�)�:=�.'4t�;.'�'.�`�?•; tiE:>r.; :.;n.�e.:.xs:;.m ":l'%. ';#
• •
to establish a drop site
c resolve
to discuss and s
�.is�'>t,.;.. ,;«._,ss:�'?.:1`u„r'i,':«,,:;a>'-..,y C;
( f r
r 7 fl S
after second week of
contingent collection
nNi)�., i'lz1'`'.9:'ii. f•Y'.:Y'rs`S: .rMr',,f,lrt`r.(..i
.trek r ; YYyt, i z°
•
interrupted service
•
options after two
,'�J,:�'.'lCf:h_dv,. .:�:u S.kJru•r ,rf`.}}�. i.
', :'
�ii,l;Di".:'i5.:s •; i:y�,�r>,i(i;.i:.i(Ff;�Y,!..rr�:jSiJe:',"7��,A,r;i:: .,,l .v ,rr�i'i�r"�}':"
��.:tr": ,(,rE:,,,"r:,r::F;a
•
with no charge.
week of interrupted
s
,'r�,.:-:}:F,',�:�•.•�;,:,��t{N�{E.,,.,�,..����:-:r,};��.:_:'.::��,���
rrtl>w,C�u!fill'r.;�(Cf✓`its"S:`:�'�•li`P�,�n`F'•ri�'S=r'>rn�'�
Yrrre: ;t'y";jrx;,: > ,H'{:tta+Ya.=;.>y;:=.,,.a;.,
°"
y;[s ':ifyit '.fir: :7 isi'�. Y'i'•':hrr:r').'y'ilt'i7,'•!:.�i.)Fi�y�p�. ,,J.{::.�.;-'Yi'.'a
Missed collection
•
service. Missed
girdlerr r' '�syy.'2�yWjtly gts�d "�'�1`� }"rita5,),"s4) 3 �?�7�,'t £ tf}(tt<S h'aiq
{ iF� i`
' eM1•;:, }. �,nii, ;h t',�$,F,,f��2,:yi'4'Mitci,.f:
a((,nFafP�'I.j,.r
F.�.:,.:.�:,.�:�;z
irked u the next
p p
•
collection irked u
',_�:.�S ,r:'ij i2, :!'fYud�M:>�:,rJ ili(i �brC^, �rtr':�y."��i�'.•u'$.YSw��'tliji.i: 't''.i.,.
:;`wY">NY,:H:: '',.ijl'� .:�Niw �"•F"`.t,��tY'i. to li -t:+ :::fit:ln'' '�ti:;:5,
7';!rr.'�'�"�':.s;€r3a.;:'r:ri;,'')cs:a:•`,zr,,. 3. "'_�.ti;� '+"� -
.f.ir 'r`.: y',}.,•.,1.- :x},>:}.fc''..'w :. •;l..,rJS:r"j:", ++ri, ^'.� �N�;F;�^
�7M4r•4'4':r.
~''�Y:-x.,`;.':k•;e'xt:`z'S
:,t..:;
•
re(j�����{lar collection daythe
next regular
fi. 4':�"" ,sri,itij�r�:a}r,.<\.r k,r,jaalrs»"":r_•.• _
:',ii! :K?r:>%F;^C:..4'•?>".ie ,>r✓z:9y:�i,'','Y,ru'-1 ;;'cQ{+�i;�...�,,.aa, s:l}.r: -
''�Z.'rtra"
,.,s.:.i,i.°_
:,- -ri
V
with no additional
collection day
•, :.4,
gs�; itr^:p;,>,.•�.»;r47; ::.;,;,z„v:., �:F'.>r"s4,`',::M :;r:r'.',�is:`�k�':`•„
'x•c:,h..ry ,,iyj1}^�%'i;'i;-�':it (:':. y.;
':.jril;'r�rtsi,,3i;r..,yrt.Y',7•,a,,��'?`,'<`"-iY'�4yi',f-S,r
ir,4:;�:�,A:'�'i: !,'++>hi-?iFl`'''�i=`
�r��->
charge for excess
✓
, �'{�<':�,. Y. `S�g J [�3 ai q� A 4 iyf tl% •, /` �Y �� � S''^f q�'") {FC.�i,'.��.h r..'� 1 ,i- t
r,
➢.; M^Y:flrk!„2y^i'7%'�i:ailtrli:�flMNf`�Zt',1•'r'(:''1C:'S:,^{:Y_;t`y,i(.r.l,f'�=t`:>ti:�.:;tf
volumes
}_;yf`"I'y+iy!y�.?4t.
:'>:;{°'.t,'�i'�. ,,,ftitativ';�`�';""i:Jt: :ynr{�R'%'f'�futy�ur�ria ,v�,,y.YV�{''`�';Y!: n•y�ri-.,.�i;{:;�:r.F� afx;<�t
r�,7,�>,�.,.`1rf;>":;{'!Y•y'.: •�..R;r:;1:31" r:}„>;.X;�j:F; R;Y,�S �iL�t;,?P,;l: :'ram"'.li:;sF�'; �';!",
,Jy.}!.. ty: 's, 1et'?.,
1+,,4�jj 4 , -
".:'"n 'r"tf4.:.11.A-X,x'T•�i�?�'I�f: ::. jii
Re re 30 day
q Y
Allows Contractor to
• •
Similar to City;
tY/
:.:r ,e
�,
�.,' ^' irri'A:iA�y; ;•.4{-, t., .p
5�T'tl,� %?�:k�g�r ; � r°f,�'�:;;�:�,!��f•'^..;`is'%S-r�; is:;t?s�,^�:�ia'r,.�:r;.b: r'+.
}:;`::,�gfu',i.9%�2.3!•xx.yi;, ::r�(',a:�4�'^; ;t,_. t,.{i ',•,rf�,;,iutu ,{%. ..z.r .,i'.
...,k.;,w ..�
notice and Ci t3'
establish and change
g
s 45 day notice
requires
q Y
r ;i:s .:�``�•):iati ..;9:r•�.m("v=.:'�rly""1,:.:: - :tea `.>i; ,t.
sii�!;lVltx?�"`��i57?r `,
2'`.r ab4,:k•Ytiy u..��— rid. .:�!
:l,; �s: ,•,}'r h,"n :�i:krr :`', :,• ''i7c?i4-tq,.
.'rt:�rii;W%:1;+%., cv F?%..5s'vt .:;1 1. Y:<f
r fr��ttM �'. .x-.
•
approval of change in
pp g
•
all routes and pick
p p
•
to City; contractor
Y�
r<� b dt=j
II
vv N
'
routes and pick-up
times without notice
must red tag the
1 } ! 4
"T 1 x f
♦
,,?:sr.,rhst':�='^'+t�,s,.:rr; ,op•, J;';..,;7'
•F;rr25'a,i; 'tn$,;d ,^�2, �--s`.:EA::::S::, S;r .rcg,i>efi.,{;:Ic7Fn:_txl-;
;
♦
times and 14 dayto
City or customer
containers before new
wi;; ,^l;i,::',':k' <<:fr'g�`'•,".�'tir.;,5.'-a`F'u'y`lr�:a�f;a�;;ja(_;:t"7!'�'"✓'.-:dyu".;r'-'it7,`.sJ�:,'c „+,,."?`.-F,
�:p'E,;-�}d„'r�,A.,,;�^,.,Vi,+�,.re;ti/'.i'L,x6n=;r;,=,,:�n�(:! �,v;.G,c��r�{r},z; ;J,k. +G:i��:i%:.+:uj.�Sb:A;�.}S; •_
.t;dY,'':•';;R�;i
3:f;sF•. 's_
.
notice to customer
•
schedule is
.,:.�..::=:r.:Mtr
1f%tf'f�'�i'J,1 3+_a, a) J.x1�r �.� iCl1 f 9r 1
1, f fa r�i F4 t 44r
�° r3 , k
nl��i•� �(f/4tgl%���Y +h� {;!'��, �jt 4xr +``ir �,�
implemented and
tt�5
',�;; s: ttysi,F, �m+1.�,r�.��eF�'I:C'%�F'i}`'�?:S'i�fl4.4:%%�,(.-1.t1r'.�"y. tf :,`�i.�li_sr,^/�i_�-
'', �•.r��%,.jY �YIV�'M�'F..ist•.t:V;�'1�:}iy:21r'eiY;,,,^n:" t�!'ll'i��:}'r�'; i�,i+15i,:.t%,.i^v'Yj'"h,�''u'"��,�:"u i�:i1:`t:. -
�,..Y;S::e{�.+4�'n,`Nfli':; •5ir}:'_?::?it•k!f'>.',._u .rt: n.l,;', 'i.�; ..:3�,'•vF}�'i't;:; r";7:s
•
llin
must use robo-calling
g
M"a3
Prohibited use ofy
Limited onl to
Includes more
'"`a"jr•a`n.s�k}.t'��f':,':"l.,_�:,. J:1
.,','
vehicles not meeting
•
standard that vehicles
• • •
restrictive emission
eS','FN.7
';�j„a.,,, ,,.t.,.::);t:.:"°! 14'.:rlr (..44C:57�fs;'n°a;layr�,�., 5•y;")s;:.(, �:�;:�e�; i'��+z,4's;:t�^^ •;aat
,���wN+airy„ ,r..'%ziS:1+7i:::,.;i::;, `"i;�'4'i�t•;S;i'k:lwY fil,.tY..Ce,t�"H'>£ert r4,d..l..,z2 /x'n''v Jtt'Ga
:�§:1;.,gF':,r:Y.."'+S`J',. -:v;:. ..`G%itiC%.,.5, ..✓p'�kr,.; ffu;,',,^.'-d,,'v.rftr: <r"r'In :�':,a'i
specific standards and
p
GL
be clean and
standards requires
�
I,yp}tN.tH f�!$b :7}�3,'i���,A';kt ti �i Ufhy�yi ft"`ffr fl �tjdr' t ]/ F t
• •
Condition (no leaks)
•
sanitary"
•
weekly vehicle
•'V'•,i'�,li�fik)t'!'}ik„S'hF tjYt t-L.f.:�i,'�' �f t.ii�.t,'�:{!j:��,P1'f,:is ill(..?�Y'���i�h'�k.'.=,jh}'4L:� '��'N n'{f.'-.'
a•t ;.r„'', ..Ei'.';+^'r�Y'sirt;;:yL:?';_':'y,.� %r��::;,•::�'3;>, :?,i
• • •
wf� n prohibits
C,1•shi
g� p
„.rtdr.4.,x:a".,�'a;Ch?i`t'J's
.,"}:�yfvn�G`- i^i'f?.:�'3%ftM?iJf�.::�.-:..,hy��r. �:11rtty'j rya,,.}}r,�r '�f,43:,X�"rt,'r1.'�iY,,', 5`1r.,L;�+`� ': %:::•.:1..-:.i.M
advertising; includes
i�,�gc;�iT"yi'•';',5�"�:iahY£"t,�r�k��%""_,�''��,;,,�,�"'if�'y�'7as^t;�t>:tw,",�,{;x��'`r"!��'�`�r*'t`i. ,,Fn�:N���;n��:
r.�;�,:1i,...F
�'
other restrictions
:�,�,��},�����...t�,ti�,:M•�;�; �f ^,,�:.�,°
%�`tu,,,�a;.:.'.�„!,'�.r..";'<.!k-`+'=�i°;r ~:tR« .�y�i%u;, ���2''��rx•. et1.f,. a�i'�i.�y, �:j`i".fis?
St��: :fl,..•l'=�;,ii,,f,3;n•`na,''!♦rl..r,t,. ,;.251a:,M;.'F; 4.e. uf!{! .i'i,Sr.i:i;i .�l;Gi ;i �.
t;J°r(dva .ve' �;,:5 r�.•i `�>`: "Z'3,'`� gal{ tt,t, q±fin dn3 '^I;,
+tier;:}%G,:i'�.:A ,,.5•;5�y;�< del^: ti?n:;# � E.,.-4,ti''w:
6lU�}: "r_i�ns, }}�� •. i, ,S`y... '","•l^.f'•: S:: fy}yY�. _::r". I'.. L'
S fies the size of
Specifies
p
Available can sizes &
•
Similar to Ci ■y
�i1'•r�!�x`��Cs,',vr;4.Y4��'.'�:�;�M,•r'^�'���v.��'i:1, r•'„`v..AiY,A �, S�.tr U'',t `-�'ji'r: rz'k',?'
'��"
iA;;tyY4::4t:''ibNlr�tJr;�til�vf .:r ,':.4. .. ?�i'i<a;Ys,+Pi'�i"f^t'..�1'b:yrli�'.;,+�b3YF�.�'f iCF I~`;f �"j,�✓}`1�.'1�5.� f,f.i fp$ r°; k9�t u''� , 4 Ff�` 5=
carts and services to
services to identified
+�:r:`rn,'�r'�xW4:F)�!js..•,.ar5 uft. yai :.,, it,r?J) �r>aKaf, y+?,�.;.r.�tjlfr'% )M .N,l,u_jx•. .f,"iT;..,},Ns.,{ty,y,2
be made available
i n Exh. B*
Comparison of Material Terms May 30, 2013
Requires immediate
Clean-up
Required contractor to
participate in annual
performance review
and to prepare a plan
to address deficiencies
"Established a
process for complaint
resolution — City may
adjudicate dispute and
issue corrective order
Imposed time limits
on answering calls
and hold times
Allowed customers to
suspend service
without charge in 1
week increments
Comparison of Material Terms May 30, 2013 2
No similar obligation
No similar obligation
No complaint
resolution process and
no authority of city to
adjudicate or issue a
corrective order;
obligation to record
and respond to
complaints
No limits/standards
Removes description
of suspension service;
Imposes service fee of
$15.00
Similar to City except
that performance fees
may be imposed for
non-compliance
Similar to City;
allows annual
performance review;
includes market
survey obligation and
minimum customer
satisfaction levels
Similar to Allied but
with performance fees
and with additional
and more detailed
service standards
including, dedicated
customer service
numbers; call
handling 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. weekdays
and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Saturday; live
representatives;
capacity to handle 10
calls at time;
corrective measures
required for non-
performance;
imposition of
performance fees;
requires staff with
management level
authority available to
resolve complaints
Similar to City;
additionally requires a
correction plan for
excess delays and
possible performance
fees
Same as City
r �u , .. h ,.
.t .L .t 1
,
1 - 1, r y'f
..,,_. :, •,„' ... ....,", ,, .,. r: .,.�+�..J2 ,,.,t.,.-...-;;:'=w
.. •2. a( r. ne n .. ,
S
- Wit. "�`
_. , ,...tar ,.,. ':,� �vl��rr.rF
r
air:
s•
.X'tt:'2-., ;:T:•J'k i:)�}'S!H:: �,+:%.
`�Fi P F. �. IY�=N'.+''�'�,r,i";'%
'�z_ gin:
Y�
lln
•,•v
Required Allied s
No obligation
g
•
Similar to C1 ty
'�}Tyy {Fr tiz5;;;=
t 1� t
d} '�- ; '1,c ` a1 ga`fi
�'r�A�Ni� J1 J, l,At;t. t,.t^.tY'.•�iF fxf l.,tY Q �.,. ;:.1:` .,.day%�s, ..G?,c,,.,: �::t..i`
`fir,7�;vP,t,Sii'rt::i:.`y'ukY;;"iiYFY'u^�•'^ "vi:>rPt. :':��; -;fit{�'::}':3:i� >1ir:l.;vti';r
1
• i
cooperation n event
ti,n4?'° s;}k.`K_<wn.'s�;':�,,:
,yv;_„rr,.,rtS:•:
":p:':�,+'`.'�' n."T,��Y, - raY:.J;; t":..J':m J.,,:a v:.3.'i,: �''t}r +.l%'r!-,`. ..li::ili�'r::;Si3'n".'• k
.�`'S .ti,rt „ri,!t!nr„ ^: t., ;{R.. 1,:+ r.i' .:P t1` :.;i'br `' r,�:i y� :ei:'�e,«in:Sii` t'fi[..,.t;:+. ii'treau7',%;i',.ti. :'4'„iiX' :.;t��:: •c1-t^�`
•r,.1,>:)qy:n :ur,.': iF.'(%: >, :.4#p•4'1;;1t,c..; t;: L1.1ioT'} "`"
of transition to new
� :.
��+>,��i,.. o"',i:
Slua'^:rae,'; �`';�:,� ai? _ e�lni�� •:ny;. �,:J'� ':%i`'-� r,�'d..;':;
' c �'-�- ;P,:&rii�3
.t5i) ;�_i°�1*'°�'''� ii,:Y':s.'.': ;k(v? •it '.1Wi� ,Acn:,;ari�t,+
�n}., kv�,�r �'�'N�"° �h„:::'i?1:°1'ii;fj.�:'s r'ldir.,ry:. ` �� 1 _A ...
J �r"'�;:A�xr 'ii:Y.•.,;'.lx`ti,,>x,h,,,.::id%J':y'::J„i`,^^^!t:`;"��`>::p�i)�ry:i;:�`['. r:(i�i�r' ;: Pt:U� ..: r'(:,
}J,X't A*!, t ')v< 1 V 5 ..,)t.{1}. , a 5 .. .r'�.,.,4, i
provider
':^:';;;'`T:;y;',J', 2.�%y«F"5`,'t.`.¢:!,.�`.V'.,+,`i-'(:
e:' �,s•'�a,,,i:. • k .. s Ja ��:i` _; .4
u Utz r ' 3 < r �� „
• • �i
Established City s
•
Allows termination
•
Establishes credits on
3
ft 1 /FX i fi y' uF � 3 Y� } WF h 4 q, .,
yin „..,;::;,.,
M1v r ,, s',„. -/Y,:1
;x.:
ri ht to terminate for
g
only in case of
Y
r ills d
customer b an
+,,,,..n`>�kS�.,7J^,'.•;�2i''F:i�x"<Y9FrSV S�ovN:i�lfi'Fr:lq•jC-
':%yw,�vr..7,x;'r„
'c •iFis' ..i`i'i ,,Fc,.s.r`,.`�.''':�, n k', c.:n. >ti .iy �s"�`ti: ,'i:i;''Ua". M,kY:;t., ti'N
r`r
•
trial default and
material
bankruptcy or
p Y
p erformance fees for
:.i','ri;"-t...t .;7".t7_'�%�t�',,ych�,iM�i`'u.:y�� .: Gy6f_•e4�;�'�W tw�m'J�iir�; 'r,':Yi�,'-» „i.[it'fj,, '31,''
,z�r, i,71'2:��}cy1 .` 'G4�-�- Yv..�e',�:;yyy,: r' •I ' nAx9i(,{i,.�i:iti°' ':,{;,-:N,'i'rn�•�+: �'`��a'rJ'F.r.:c.s.'. �.�?r:
y` ✓. yi.s?}tvxrf,a,�„•i `y�%.4Y _.,;?4jt,.��� .:i:lfiSf:'f.'Y:%Pi •".,':Y.Y r;,;i!.S•y ,l.G'i -
;J,Tti�sitiJs: ,:,1=t�'rX ,s }i5. h: i:JY-_.�.�) - :T•,f n,
,. .. ,1rs' - Y
�,�:,:r
•
included a waiver of
• •
ion of non-
violation
non-performance
._A:e!v•Y+-'r:\E._sv:'fynrf,A'�.Y::.<�'�%'✓l7i:N•:�}• ::JSF : sa-{,`nr`f'r ;:jl% ^:-ii �..»<. Spa r•i
MAN X {� x
i C t' , 7 -
�� t'' R{i � ,' S'i
•
Allied's right to seek
• • •
discrimination
ranging from $50.00
- 11 Jr /ySi
x.'. Qsy>TGId;^;y4 ' E ;uf ' ,, � : '{xs...e. y.-,)r $ y t" i. (Y .lY., i • � v �
�:; fXh _y4 ': y.4, ���%�`ii,il!i,i5"4:Y'�;1�-5lny"`:Y.::;:'1`y'•'lf:�n`:,'i l'te'a:'�t':. d:✓a j,,.t� ,;�,f�T'
.�^1:�:'ti::i,rt:i-' i)f,'.`,tt:'"<„-,rr..:rq'}._:..i:vJ-;:tr"Ji,•i.})I.,i: �.ir:-v^ ""➢."'•'kiY;`i.�.::.. ^r:ilNC�,;:.
•
statut o damages 1f
provisions. Cannot
to $l0 Q00 per
�
•:tr���F:'n;,F.ya.':52}2:.`�xea .,F.' ri. u�t.Yl: r:,4itz,,
y.r.`i:.a,,. .5;,>.>�•!., k ;;7:
.ii+nR> a
termination was for
terminate as of right
violation includes a
•
systematic default
even for material
performance bonus
�!:Irtm„,a :rk.GFu 5+:� i`Y:':'r Y�' .E,„7::'is4`•a�v .FiY):w <F�✓ ,�i'd',t.;y�i _
r,�.�,5,°S;S' �.;r a;R:; .-r.•'J,%'n'''��k�, n,.n �ty:9=v:->,,.,. �'-
^Y,"',i�r :,.i��f�n'`,
%r;..-::,
°.: ;-F;x,
•
breach and no waiver
•
m terminate
City a
urltt
�f
w'yinc2; ::r''t',.rctz,tts,.,�,.�:.,�.
ryg+.;ti:f�;'(.rt .-,:jr5�,;•,.2,. S':. ,xr:.,trae�c<n <. i `_'„q'y.Ye%'�m55',: :1,1''IG'?,�•t•;.
ii.$,-.;'' �:.. z`':tt; 't• },,, ^':Y 2,..;�{:r;ir,;`,.ey;r;';t',`i`vt`':`.x;?a•�.'crs:.t
- id'dt<J"
damages
of statutory dam g
for un-cured default a
'✓
,
-391,1�
. r
�n*�f
}r^
r'ltit��,,:ii,::ta'
�h...0
erformance bond is
1i�.•"d1"lIp-
+ 5;^i!r..'n
`.;
.�S.5Fy�?`l_'fr�,kf�`.'�'v:'..1t';,'`r`�F.�.
i'njl;:�.i
.iyf:.,�
`:N,.t;lry
"Ia,l1>7�1
rl,r111�:r�;(-"fiFn c,4;vr;`<t4.M,i4..h:a.
xfg�=x:iS::i:trC.r.rJ_�=,_;i%'' .:'E..:,y�,35;}';.rX'l}i;ir..si,'. :ou;k1iijVta;,c
}t,. ;;r r-"
+ta:t,;'>r�1as7:.'r;:-•.y i:J.�,'`a},,i.ts+Atls>r:aw;, tL +,
:>..f.,:ttp?
required which allows
T31�e4
' vin"..;
`r >y"•y ;ai:, c;r:�ti„i.4��:�F.i; ,t>a,;-J';'w1..�
�.'%i`.t;r
the surety to take over
^;u.a^.2cf3,t,•:Jas,,':tyi. r: ,t..,,ryii:';rca'';��. siv, ..j,F';; '<-�
Yt:,-`4 -t
T, it
contractors
Yr'
F';-yv.'i.,.: :i)�3:;f;,i'i!:?;,;S,lsri,.:» :.«r-ut.,:KrN;r:> a,r'',;�_!?:,�-'c',r�-F �:!•,
1���rr�l;C:..�.:
r`kf.<
:" `is�l,"t ``„r•GP.a.r. „tsf '%�%t-`$�,F'.',. ;;9'`rP:(":,�<r.�',d;
l:d,; `ih4^nC,'��:- :;:tf;:, ::,ti!'f•1�fi..,: �:,Str:^ �`ile,iY,;'s11 ..t• Yk: n?7�?,'.F;''_
_.,:,
• • •
obligations in lieu of
sa�..ysit�f'�,s'!�,?,rr.`:li,-;tit
Sl
t
S�$E•',�t,lsir.,." fi S`� 41 Jy f i
termination
l*)'<' 1 Leta 1 t'J.i k 7 <I
5
*Note: Allied has proposed that all rates, fees and descriptions for services shall be set forth in Exhibit B to the
agreement. Exhibit B was not provided by Allied; thus, it is unknown what Allied intends to propose. The City had
proposed that initial rates and fees would be based upon the existing tariff filed with the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission.
**Note: The customer complaint adjudication process in the City draft agreement was suggested by Allied and is
modeled after the process used by the WUTC. The Bellevue agreement does not include such a process; however,
that agreement includes provisions for imposition of customer credits and performance fees.
Comparison of Material Terms May 30, 2013