HomeMy WebLinkAboutUtilities 2013-01-22 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Utilities Committee
• Joe Duffie, Chair
• Allan Ekberg
• Verna Seal
Note: 1iesd AGENDA
Distribution:
J. Duffie
A. Ekberg
V. Seal
K. Hougardy
D. Robertson
Mayor Haggerton
D. Cline
K. Matej
B. Giberson
F. Iriarte
R. Tischmak
G. Labanara
S. Kerslake
Clerk File Copy
2 Extra
A. Le (e -mail pkt. pdf)
e -mail cover to:
C. O'Flaherty, D.
Almberg, B. Saxton,
S. Norris, M. Hart
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2013 (due to holiday)
Time: 5:00 PM Conference Room #1 (6300 Building)
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, February 4, 2013
15. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance.
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1.
PRESENTATION(S)
2.
BUSINESS AGENDA
a) 2013 Utilities Committee Work Plan
e)
Information Only
Pg. 1
b) TCC Spray Park Sewer Connection
a)
Forward to 2/4/13 Regular
Pg. 3
Project Completion and Acceptance
Consent Agenda
c) EMWS Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12
b)
Information only
Pg. 5
Project Status
d) EMWS Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12
c)
Forward to 2/4/13 Regular
Pg. 7
2013 Annual Small Drainage Program
Consent Agenda
Consultant Selection and Agreement
e) Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
Amended and Restated Agreement
d)
Forward to 1/28/13 C.O.W.
and 2/4/13 Regular
Pg. 19
3.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.
MISCELLANEOUS
Future Agendas:
Adoption of SWCP
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, February 4, 2013
15. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance.
P
TO:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Public Works Bob Giberson, P.E., Director
Mayor Haggerton
Utilities Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Robin Tischmak, City Engineer
DATE: January 18, 2013
SUBJECT: 2013 Utilities Committee Work Plan
ISSUE
Discuss the list of 2013 funded utility projects and any anticipated items which may be brought forward
to the Utilities Committee.
DISCUSSION
Public Works will inform the Utilities Committee about the 2013 work program, anticipated schedules,
and potential committee agenda items, as well as obtain direction from the committee regarding any
preferences or requests for how agenda items are included and presented.
Surface Water
2012 Small Drainage Program (Construction) — Project close -out.
2013 Small Drainage Program — Award design & construction contracts.
Lift Station #15 Improvements — Award construction contract.
NPDES Program — Present Annual Report for discussion along with new permit requirements.
Soils Reclamation Facility — Award preliminary design & site location contract.
Surface Water Comprehensive Plan — Discuss future policies & adopt plan.
Tukwila 205 Levee Discuss certification options and funding.
Sanitary Sewer
Annual Sewer Repair Program — Approve contracts for design and construction.
CBD Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation — Award design & construction contracts.
Sewer Lift Station # 2 Upgrades — Award generator replacement & repairs contract.
Sewer Comprehensive Plan — Adopt plan.
Water
Andover Park W /Strander New Water Main — Coordinate construction with APW street project.
Water Comprehensive Plan — Adopt plan.
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement — City action by April 30, 2013 for Amended and Restated ILA.
Mandatory Garbage Collection
Franchise Agreement with Allied Waste (Tukwila South & PAA)
Other Utility Issues
Howard Hanson Dam Flood Control Measures Removal — Construction closeout.
Franchise Agreements — PSE, T- Mobile, Comcast, XO, Level 3, ELI, Zayo, 360Networks, and SCL,
Regional Fiber Consortium Projects
RECOMMENDATION
Information only.
W:1PW Eng'OTHERbRobin TisohakInfoMemo2013 Utilities WorkProgram.doc
1
2
Cit of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Utilities Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer
DATE: January 18, 2013
SUBJECT: Tukwila Community Center Spray Park Sewer Connection
City Project No. 91030101
Project Completion and Acceptance
ISSUE
Accept contract as complete and authorize release of the retainage.
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2012, the City entered into Contract No 12 -085 with Goodfellow Bros., Inc., of
Maple Valley, Washington for the installation of an outside drop connection on the existing
sewer manhole serving the Tukwila Community Center Spray Park. Work began on
September 11, 2012 and was completed on September 19, 2012. No change orders were
issued to the contract.
Contract Award Amount (without sales tax)
Reduction in Quantities
Sales Tax at 9.5%
Total
$58,900.00
(1,250.00)
5,476.75
$63,126.75
Retainage of $2,882.50 was held from the single payment to Goodfellow Bros., Inc.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the installation of the sewer connection project were included in the 2012 Parks
CIP Budget with a project budget was $70,945.05, including contingency.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked for formal acceptance and retainage bond release authorization,
subject to standard claim and lien release procedures, for the contract with Goodfellow
Bros., Inc., in the amount of $63,126.75 and to consider this item on the Consent Agenda of
the February 4, 2013 Regular Meeting.
Attachments: Dept. of Revenue Notice of Completion
W:IPW Eng4PROJECTS\A- PK Projects' TCC Spray Park Sewer Connection (91030101) \InfoMemo Complettton Good Fellow BROS Spray Park Const • sb doc
3
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
Contractor's UBI Number: 048 000 968
Name & Address of Public Agency
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
UBI Number: 179- 000 -208
Date: 12/17/12
Department Use Only
Assigned to:
Date Assigned:
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Project Name
TCC Spray Park Sewer Connection (91030101)
Contract Number
12 -085
Job Order Contracting
❑ Yes • No
Description of Work Done /Include Jobsite Address(es)
Install outside drop on existing manhole.
Federally funded road transportation project? ❑ Yes V No
Contractor's Name
Telephone Number
Goodfellow Brothers, Inc.
(509) 662 -7111
Contractor Address
PO Box 1419, Maple Valley, WA 98038
If Retainage is Bonded, List Surety's Name (or attach a copy)
N/A
Surety Agent's Address
N/A
Date Contract Awarded
Date Work Commenced
Date Work Completed
Date Work Accepted
7/19/12
9/11/12
9/19/12
10/26/12
Contract Amount
Additions (+ )
Reductions (- )
Sub -Total
Amount of Sales Tax Paid at
.095
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown)
Please List all Subcon
$ 58,900.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,250.00
$ 57,650.00
$ 5,476.75
TOTAL $ 63,126.75
NOTE: These two totals must be equal
Liquidated Damages $
Amount Disbursed $
Amount Retained $
ractors Below:
0.00
60,244.25
2,882.50
TOTAL $ 63,126.75
Subcontractor's Name:
UBI Number:
Affidavit ID (if known)
Terra Dynamics, Inc.
601
030
794
Del Mar Concrete Cutting
602
260
574
Drain -Pro Inc.
602
740
534
F215 -038 -000 08 -2011
REV 31 0020e (08/25/11)
Continued on page 2
4
0
J
11 4
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Utilities Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Ryan Larson, Senior Engineer
DATE: January 18, 2013
SUBJECT: EMWS Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12
Project No. 91241206
Project Status
ISSUE
Status update on the East Marginal Way South (EMWS) Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12 Project,
BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2012, a large sinkhole was created after there was a break in a 30 -inch storm water line on EMWS, just
south of S 124th St. The pipe conveys storm water flows from the east fork of Riverton Creek, as well as local drainage in the
area near Group Health. The City Council declared an emergency per Resolution No. 1783 and Goodfellow Brothers was hired
to complete a temporary emergency repair of the failed pipe and fill the sinkhole.
In the following days, it was observed that a blockage had formed in a storm pipe just upstream of the break. City crews
investigated and found that the trash rack on the pipe was missing and that a significant amount of debris had become lodged
within the pipe. Crews removed firewood and other debris from the pipe, but were unable to completely clear it. Given the
significant damage that may have resulted from additional flooding, Green River Construction was hired on November 22, 2012
to dig up the pipe, cut a window in it, and remove the debris. All work was coordinated with the Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
ANALYSIS
Staff has researched the EMWS pipe system and determined that it is made up of sections of 30" corrugated metal (CMP) and
36" concrete pipe. It is believed that the concrete sections were installed at a later time than the CMP and represent sections
that were improved by the County prior to annexation. City crews performed limited video inspections of the pipe and
determined that the pipe is in imminent danger of failure and repairs are needed within the CMP sections. A complete
inspection of the pipe was not completed due to standing water and sediment within the pipe.
Prior to recommending repair options, a complete video inspection will need to be performed. This will require pipe dewatering
and limited cleaning so that a camera can pass between catch basins. The complete video inspection will help determine which
specific sections need improvements.
The EMWS storm pipe conveys Riverton Creek, which is a fish bearing stream and all work is subject to WDFW review and
approval. Initial discussions with WDFW indicate that providing fish passage may not be required due to the overall pipe system
length. If the WDFW does not require fish passage of the repair sections, it is recommended that the City still consider
improvements for fish passage where feasible.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $61,992.94 has been spent to date on temporary repairs and permitting. The expenditures were taken from the
remaining available funding within the 2012 Small Drainage Program. Future repair costs will come from the 2013 Annual
Drainage Program including $39,403.95 for a design study that is being presented tonight. Final design and construction costs
are unknown at this time and will be forthcoming.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only.
Attachments Vicinity Map
Wt4PW Engp.PROJECTSW- DR Projects,.EMW Emergency Storm Pipe Repa6r 11 -19,12 $91241206 E9nfo Memo Update UC 1 -22 -13 gl.docx
5
East Marginal Way Pipe Locaton Map
V.
Pipe Repair /Sink Hole
a
EMWS Pipe Location
6
aV
TO:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Utilities Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
40j
By: Ryan Larson, Senior Engineer
DATE: January 18, 2013
SUBJECT: EMWS Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12 / 2013 Annual Small Drainage Program
Project No. 91241206
Consultant Recommendation and Agreement
ISSUE
Approve a consultant agreement with KPG, Inc. to perform engineering design services for the East Marginal
Way South (EMWS) Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12 Project.
BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2012, a large sinkhole was created by a break in a 30 -inch storm water line on East
Marginal Way South just south of S 124th St. the pipe conveys storm water flows from the east fork of
Riverton Creek, as well as local drainage in the area near Group Health. The pipe is corrugated metal and is
approximately 10' deep. A contractor was hired and performed a temporary emergency repair of the failed
pipe per Emergency Resolution No. 1783. City crews performed limited video inspection of this pipe and
determined that the pipe is in imminent danger of failure and repairs need to be designed and conducted as
soon as practical.
ANALYSIS
In order to permanently repair the pipe, the City will need to hire a consultant to determine which sections to
repair, what will be allowed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), estimated costs,
and the possibility of phasing the work.
The current MRSC Consultant Roster was reviewed and three firms were short- listed to study this pipe
system and recommend repair options. The firms were: KPG, Inc., PACE Engineers, and CH2M Hill. The
Summary of Qualifications was evaluated for each firm and KPG, Inc. was selected as the firm that best met
the requirements. KPG has designed City projects since 1991 and Public Works staff continues to be very
satisfied with their work. KPG has an excellent working relationship with the WDFW, is knowledgeable of City
requirements, and assisted with the initial repair work on this project. It is recommended that KPG, Inc.
perform preliminary design services for this project for a fee of $39,403.95.
BUDGET SUMMARY
Funding for this project will come from the 2013 Annual Small Drainage Program,
Contract Budget (SDP)
Preliminary Design $ 39 „403,95 $ 80,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to approve the design agreement with KPG, Inc. in the amount of $39,403.95 for the
EMWS Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12 Project and consider this item on the Consent Agenda of the
February 4, 2013 Regular Meeting.
Attachments: Consultant Rating form
CIP Page 136
Consultant Agreement
W.sPW EngIPROJECTSW DR ProjectstEMW Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12 (91241206J41nfo Memo KPG Contract.doc
7
N
co
co
co
N
N
N
N
co
1Relevant Project Experience
Experience with HPA/Creek Work
Small Scale Projects
Ability to keep project on schedule and within Budget
Project Team Availability of Key Team Members
Knowledge of City , Plan Process, Drainage System
M
N
Firm Rank
(1 - 3, Lowest = Best)
W: \PW Eng \PROJECTSW- DR Projects \EMW Emergency Storm Pipe Repair 11 -19 -12 (91241206) \Proposal Rating.xls
8
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2013 to 2018
PROJECT: Annual Small Drainage Program Project No. Varies
DESCRIPTION: Select, design, and construct small drainage projects throughout the City.
JUSTIFICATION: Provide drainage corrections for existing /ongoing drainage problems throughout the City, including culvert
replacements, drain extensions, and pavement upgrades.
STATUS: Projects for this annual program are taken from Small Drainage Project List.
MAINT. IMPACT: Reduces maintenance.
Ongoing project, only one year shown in first column. Construction expenses may occur over two calendar
COMMENT: years. King County Flood Control District Sub - Regional Opportunity Fund (Interlocal 09 -153) is estimated at
$45,000 each year for Tukwila, as 10% of monies collected by KCFCZD are proportionally set per jurisdiction.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
in $000's
2011 2012 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
118
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
758
Land (R/W)
0
Const. Mgmt.
80
75
65
80
80
80
80
80
80
700
Construction
748
675
500
525
525
525
525
525
525
5,073
TOTAL EXPENSES
946
830
645
685
685
685
685
685
685
6,531
FUND SOURCES
KC Flood Control
20
45
45
45
45
45
48
48
341
Proposed Grant
0
Mitigation Actual
0
Mitigation Expected
0
Utility Revenue
946
810
600
640
640
640
640
637
637
6,190
TOTAL SOURCES
946
830
645
685
685
685
685
685
685
6,531
Project Location:
Entire System
2013 - 2018 Capital Improvement Program
136
9
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188
Contract Number:
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, hereinafter
referred to as "the City ", and KPG, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant ", in consideration
of the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified.
1. Proiect Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform engineering design
services in connection with the project titled E. Marginal Way S. Emergency Stormwater Pipe
Repairs.
2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies.
3. Duration of Agreement; Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be in full force and
effect for a period commencing upon execution and ending December 31, 2013, unless sooner
terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. Work under this Agreement shall
commence upon written notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall
perform all services and provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement no later
than December 31,2013 unless an extension of such time is granted in writing by the City.
4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services
rendered under this Agreement as follows:
A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit
"B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not
exceed $39,403.95 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the
City.
B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of
the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such
vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made
to the Consultant in the amount approved.
C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be
made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of
the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City.
D. Payment as provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed,
services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to
complete the work.
E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City and the state of Washington for a
period of three (3) years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon
request.
10
5, Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other
materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services rendered under this
Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is
executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible
copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with
the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said
documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any project other than
the project specified in this Agreement.
6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by
this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services rendered under this Agreement.
Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and
damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant
and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability,
including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's
negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification
provided herein constitutes the Consultant's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance,
Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually
negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
8. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from
or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents,
representatives, or employees. Consultant's maintenance of insurance as required by the
agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Consultant to the coverage
provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at
law or in equity.
A. Minimum Amounts and Scope of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain insurance of the
types and with the limits described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily
injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile Liability
insurance shall cover all owned, non - owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage
shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute
form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be
endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
CA revised 2012
Page 2
11
2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 each
occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability
insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover
liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal
injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an insured under the
Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the
work performed for the City.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of
the State of Washington.
4. Professional Liability with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and
$1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. Professional Liability insurance shall be
appropriate to the Consultant's profession.
B. Other Insurance Provision. The Consultant's Automobile Liability and Commercial
General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they
shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any Insurance, self - insurance, or
insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant's
insurance and shall not be contributed or combined with it.
C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.
Best rating of not less than A:VII.
D. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and
a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the
additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant
before commencement of the work. Certificates of coverage and endorsements as required
by this section shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this
Agreement.
E. Notice of Cancellation. The Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any
policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such notice.
F. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the
insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City
may, after giving five business days notice to the Consultant to correct the breach,
immediately terminate the contract or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance
and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be
repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due
the Consultant from the City.
Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an
independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and
employee between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the
Consultant shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services
provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or
otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state
industrial insurance program, otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to
the Consultant, or any employee of the Consultant.
CA revised 2012
Page 3
12
10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the
Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant,
the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to
deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under
this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion,
creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the selection and
retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies.
12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this
Agreement without the express written consent of the City.
13. Non - Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
14. Termination.
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10)
days written notice to the Consultant.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do
so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement
between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses.
15. Applicable Law; Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be subject to, and the
Consultant shall at all times comply with, all applicable federal, state and local laws,
regulations, and rules, including the provisions of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and
ordinances of the City of Tukwila. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is
instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree
that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any
such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. Venue for any action
arising from or related to this Agreement shall be exclusively in King County Superior Court.
16. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared
void or unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any
other provisions hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions
of this Agreement, which by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the
completion, expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this
Agreement.
CA revised 2012
Page 4
13
17. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
KPG, Inc.
753 - 9th Avenue N.
Seattle, WA 98109
18. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda,
represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No
amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in
writing and signed by the parties.
DATED this
day of , 20
CITY OF TUKWILA CONSULTANT
Mayor
By:
1\1 t
Printed Name: Nelson Davis, KPG
Title: Principal
Attest/Authenticated: Approved as to Form:
City Clerk Office of the City Attorney
CA revised 2012
Page 5
14
EXHIBIT A
City of Tukwila
E. Marginal Way S.
Emergency Stormwater Pipe Repairs
Scope of Work
January 2, 2013
PURPOSE:
This purpose of this project is to perform field investigations, utility locates, preliminary
design, and cost estimating for long term repair of an aging 36 -inch stormwater pipe
along E. Marginal Way S. between approximately 12500 and S 120th Place. A sink hole
was discovered directly above the pipe in November of 2012 due to a localized pipe
collapse. Spot repair of the pipe and limited video work revealed that the pipe is in
extremely poor condition between the inlet and the Metro Bus Barn.
After the spot repair was complete, a second blockage occurred upstream near the
stream inlet. The blockage resulted in flooding of an upstream residential lot and
structure. A second spot repair was performed to eliminate the blockage; however, it is
clear that a long term solution is necessary to maintain the integrity of this piped reach
of the east fork of Riverton Creek.
Scope of Work:
A. The estimated project duration is 4 months. The Consultant shall provide overall
project management including:
♦ Project staff management and coordination
♦ Subconsultant management and coordination
♦ Schedule and budget monitoring and reporting
B. The Consultant shall meet with WDFW staff to review project site and prepare an
emergency HPA application for the purpose of performing video inspections and
necessary spot repairs to maintain utility of the storm pipe in the short term. The
HPA is required as this storm drain is considered a piped reach of the east fork of
Riverton Creek. Permitting for the final repair will be completed once the scope
and extent of the improvements are known and is not included in this scope of
work.
City of Tukwila KPG, Inc.
EMW Emergency Stormwater Repair Page 1 of 2 January 2, 2013
15
C. The Consultant shall coordinate temporary bypass and video inspection of the
pipe to the extent practical. The video inspection will be used to determine
feasibility of in -situ repairs (such as slip lining or liner installation) and to
determine the location of the pipe by use of tracking beacons on the video
camera. A budget allowance of $7,000 is included for this work for subconsultant
services by Bravo Environmental. Video work may not be feasible in all locations
due to poor pipe conditions or significant obstructions.
D. The consultant shall survey pipe location, structure data, and public utilities along
E. Marginal Way. A budget allowance of $1,500 is included for utility locate
services by a private locating service. The survey will be used to analyze the
feasibility and cost of replacement options. Additional base mapping may be
needed for final design depending on the findings of this preliminary analysis.
E. The Consultant shall review survey, video, available geotechnical records, City
GIS mapping, and other available information to develop up to 3 alternatives for
in -situ repair and /or pipe replacement.
F. The Consultant shall develop budget level cost estimates for each of the
alternatives developed in Item E.
G. The Consultant shall prepare a brief (2 -3 pages text plus supporting graphics)
summary memo to describe alternatives and provide a recommendation for long
term repair. The memo will include anticipated permit requirements,
geotechnical needs, utility relocation needs and other factors used in developing
the preferred alternative.
Deliverables
• DVD of all completed video inspections.
• Completed JARPA application.
• Draft Technical Memorandum (5 copies)
• Final Technical Memorandum (5 copies)
City of Tukwila KPG, Inc.
EMW Emergency Stormwater Repair Page 2 of 2 January 2, 2013
16
HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE
Project: City of Tukwila
E. Marginal Way S.
Emergency Stormwater Pipe Repairs
EXHIBIT B
K.PG-
• Architecture •
Lenclecape Architecture
• Civil Engineering •
Task
Description
Project
Manager
$ 165.00
Senior
Engineer
$ 143.58
Project
Engineer
$ 114.85
Labor Hour Estimate
Design
Engineer
$ 100.49
CAD
Technician
$ 83.65
Const
Inspector
$ 94.10
Survey
Crew
$ 139.01
Senior
Admin
$ 100.49
Office
Admin
$ 58.11
Total Fee
Fee
Task 2 - 2013 Overlay Program
A. Management and administration (estimate 4 months
B. Obtain Emergency HPA for field investigation
C. Coordinate video inspection/pipe locates
D. Field survey of pipe and utilities
E. Preliminary repair / replacement options
F. Prepare cost estimates
G. Prepare brief summary memo
Reimbursable - Mileage
Reimbursable - Reproduction
Reimbursable - Utility Locate Service
Reimbursable - Video/Bypass/Cleanin g allowance
Task Total
)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
4
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
8
30
0
0
40
0
0
4
16
24
30
24
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
0
8
0
0
0
0
2
4
8
0
8
0
0
0
8
16
24
64
60
40
0
40
4
16
$ 763.42
$ 1,811.26
$ 1,449.80
$ 10,068.31
$ 10,735.96
$ 1,917.99
$ 2,957.20
$ 100.00
$ 100.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 39,403.95
Total Estimated Fee: $ 39,403.95
1/2/2013
18
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Utilities Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Frank Iriarte, Deputy Public Works Director
DATE: January 18, 2013
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
Amended and Restated Agreement
ISSUE
Approve the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Since the late 1980's, 37 cities, including Tukwila, have been participating in the cooperative management of the
King County Solid Waste System through interlocal agreements (ILAs) that expire in June, 2028. Agreements require
significant updating to reflect changes in policy, Federal and State environmental statutes, and conditions of the solid
waste transfer system. Recognizing the need to update the current 40 -year ILA, the Metropolitan Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) began collaborating with King County Solid Waste Division in 2010 to amend the
ILA. Despite success in reaching consensus in many areas, negotiations stalled over environmental liability issues.
In October 2012, City and County Negotiating Teams were formed to restart discussions and negotiate new ILA
language. The teams built upon areas of agreement reached by the MSWMAC ILA Drafting Committee and used
guiding principles from Sound Cities Association (SCA) and agreed to by King County Executive Dow Constantine.
After intensive negotiations, City and County teams successfully reached consensus on a new ILA (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
The new amended and restated ILA provides greater accountability, collaboration, transparency, and addresses the
long -term requirements of the solid waste system including the establishment of a deliberate process to deal with
future environmental liabilities. Significant improvements of the amended and restated ILA include:
• ILA extension by 12.5 years, from June 2028 through December 2040. The extension allows longer term
financing of at least 20 years for critical capital projects and provides long -term stability and certainty to the
solid waste system. Other contract terms were considered, but the negotiated term strikes a balance between
not extending the current ILA and realizing lower financing costs (but significantly higher disposal rates in the
short term), and extending the agreement for a much longer term, realizing lower rates but paying significantly
more interest over time.
• An updated Liability Section that protects City and County general funds from environmental liability. As part of
the update, a protocol was established for setting aside and subsequent distribution of disposal rates to pay for
environmental liabilities of the parties. The protocol allows the use of disposal rates to: (1) obtain and maintain
insurance coverage for solid waste system related environmental liability and (2) establish and maintain a
reserve fund to help pay the parties' environmental liabilities not already covered by system rates or insurance.
WAPW Eng`` PROJECTStSolid WastelinfoMemo -SW ILA -012213 UC gLdoc
19
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
The updated Liability Section also contains a provision to pursue Federal and /or State grants to pay for or
remediate environmental liabilities.
In the event grant, insurance, and reserve funds are insufficient to completely satisfy the environmental
liabilities of the ILA parties, then a financial plan including a disposal rate schedule will be established to help
pay for the remaining environmental liabilities.
• A comprehensive dispute resolution process that includes non - binding mediation.
• An expanded role for cities in system planning, including long -term disposal alternatives and establishing
financial policies. Cities through their membership with MSWMAC, will advise the King County Executive and
Council, King County Solid Waste Division, and other entities as appropriate on matters pertaining to solid
waste management.
More detailed information on the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement is provided in Attachment
B (Frequently Asked Questions) and Attachment C (new ILA Term Sheet).
Attachment D is a non - binding statement of interest request from the King County Solid Waste Division. The
statement of interest request merely assists the County in their planning efforts. The City can sign and forward the
non - binding statement of interest after the January 28, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting, subject to Council and
Mayor's approval.
Each City is requested to act on the new ILA by April 30, 2013 in order to develop financial policies that will inform
the 2015/16 rate period and other planning initiatives. Given the significant improvements contained in the new ILA,
approval of the attached Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement is highly recommended.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If and when environmental liabilities arise, the protocol established in the new Amended and Restated Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement protects the City's general fund to the greatest extent feasible.
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to approve the new Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and consider
this item at the January 28, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent February 4, 2013 Regular
Council Meeting.
Attachments: Attachment A - Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
Attachment B - Frequently Asked Questions
Attachment C - ILA Term Sheet
Attachment D - Non - Binding Statement of Interest
W\PW EngIPROJECTS\Solid WastelInfoMemo- SWILA- 012213 UC gl.doc
20
Attachment A
AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement ( "Agreement ") is entered
into between King County, a political subdivision ofthe State of Washington and the City of
, a municipal corporation ofthe State of Washington, hereinafter referred
to as "County" and "City" respectively. Collectively, the County and the City are referred to as
the "Parties." This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction
pursuant to formal action as designated below:
King County: Ordinance No.
City:
PREAMBLE
A. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of
extending, restating and amending the Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement between the
Parties originally entered into in (the ``Original Agreement "). The Original
Agreement provided for the cooperative management of Solid Waste in King County for
a term of forty (40) years, through June 30, 2028. The Original Agreement is superseded
by this Amended and Restated Agreement, as of the effective date of this Agreement.
This Amended and Restated Agreement is effective for an additional twelve (12) years
through December 31, 2040.
B. The Parties intend to continue to cooperatively manage Solid Waste and to work
collaboratively to maintain and periodically update the existing King County
- 1 -
21
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) adopted pursuant
to chapter 70.95 RCW.
C. The Parties continue to support the established goals of Waste Prevention and Recycling
as incorporated in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and to meet or
surpass applicable environmental standards with regard to the Solid Waste System.
D. The County and the Cities agree that System - related costs, including environmental
liabilities, should be funded by System revenues which include but are not limited to
insurance proceeds, grants and rates;
L. The County, as the service provider, is in the best position to steward funds System
revenues that the County and the Cities intend to be available to pay for environmental
liabilities; and
F. The County and the Cities recognize that at the time this Agreement goes into effect, it is
impossible to know what the ultimate environmental liabilities could be; nevertheless, the
County and the Cities wish to designate in this Agreement a protocol for the designation
and distribution of funding for potential future environmental liabilities in order to protect
the general funds of the County and the Cities.
G. The County began renting the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State of Washington in 1960
and began using it for Disposal of Solid Waste in 1964. The County acquired ownership
of the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State in 1992. The Cedar Hills Landfill remains an
asset owned by the County.
H. The Parties expect that the Cedar Hills Landfill will be at capacity and closed at some
date during the term of this Agreement, after which time all Solid Waste under this
Agreement will need to be disposed of through alternate means, as determined by the
- 2 -
22
Cities and the County through amendments to the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. The County currently estimates the useful life of the Cedar Hills
Landfill will extend through 2025. It is possible that this useful life could be extended, or
shortened, by System management decisions or factors beyond the control of the Parties.
The County intends to charge rent for the use of the Cedar Hills Landfill for so long as
the System uses this general fund asset and the Parties seek to clarify terms relative to the
calculation of the associated rent.
J. The County and Cities participating in the System have worked collaboratively for
several years to develop a plan for the replacement or upgrading of a series of transfer
stations. The Parties acknowledge that these transfer station improvements, as they may
be modified from time -to -time, will benefit Cities that are part of the System and the
County. The Parties have determined that the extension of the term of the Original
Agreement by twelve (12) years as accomplished by this Agreement is appropriate in
order to facilitate the long -term financing of transfer station improvements and to
mitigate rate impacts of such financing.
K. The Parties have further determined that in order to equitably allocate the benefit to all
System Users from the transfer station improvements, different customer classes may be
established by the County to ensure System Users do not pay a disproportionate share of
the cost of these improvements as a result of a decision by a city not to extend the term of
the Original Agreement.
L. The Parties have further determined it is appropriate to strengthen and formalize the
advisory role of the Cities regarding System operations.
23
The Parties agree as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
"Cedar Hills Landfill" means the landfill owned and operated by the County located in
southeast King County.
"Cities" refers to all Cities that have signed an Amended and Restated Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement in substantially identical form to this Agreement.
"Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" or "Comprehensive Plan" means the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, as approved and amended from time to time, for
the System, as required by chapter 70.95.080 RCW.
"County" means King County, a Charter County and political subdivision of the State of
Washington.
"Disposal" means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or incineration
of Solid Waste but shall not include Waste Prevention or Recycling as defined herein.
24
"Disposal Rates" means the fee charged by the County to System Users to cover all costs
of the System consistent with this Agreement, all state, federal and local laws governing solid
waste and the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
"Divert" means to direct or permit the directing of Solid Waste to Disposal sites other
than the Disposal site(s) designated by King County.
"Energy /Resource Recovery" means the recovery of energy in a usable form from mass
burning or refuse- derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the heat of
combustion of Solid Waste that involves high temperature (above 1,200 degrees F) processing.
(chapter 173.350.100 WAC).
"Landfill" means a Disposal facility or part of a facility at which Solid Waste is placed in
or on land and which is not a land treatment facility.
"Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "MSWAC" means the advisory
committee composed of city representatives, established pursuant to Section IX of this
Agreement.
"Moderate Risk Waste" means waste that is limited to conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste and household hazardous waste as those terms are defined in chapter
173 -350 WAC, as amended.
25
"Original Agreement" means the Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement first entered into by
and between the Parties, which is amended and restated by this Agreement. "Original
Agreements" means collectively all such agreements between Cities and the County in
substantially the same form as the Original Agreement.
"Parties" means collectively the County and the City or Cities.
"Recycling" as defined in chapter 70.95.030 RCW, as amended, means transforming or
remanufactu•ing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill
Disposal or incineration.
"Regional Policy Committee" means the Regional Policy Committee created pursuant to
approval of the County voters in 1993, the composition and responsibilities of which are
prescribed in King County Charter Section 270 and chapter 1.24 King County Code, as they now
exist or hereafter may be amended.
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes
including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, commercial waste,
sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
contaminated soils and contaminated dredged materials, discarded commodities and recyclable
materials, but shall not include dangerous, hazardous, or extremely hazardous waste as those
terms are defined in chapter 173 -303 WAC, as amended; and shall further not include those
- 6 -
26
wastes excluded from the regulations established in chapter 173 -350 WAC, more specifically
identified in Section 173- 350 -020 WAC.
"Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "SWAC" means the inter - disciplinary advisory
forum or its successor created by the King County Code pursuant to chapter 70.95.165 RCW.
"System" includes King County's Solid Waste facilities used to manage Solid Wastes
which includes but is not limited to transfer stations, drop boxes, landfills, recycling systems and
facilities, energy and resource recovery facilities and processing facilities as authorized by
chapter 36.58.040 RCW and as established pursuant to the approved King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
"System User" or "System Users" means Cities and any person utilizing the County's
System for Solid Waste handling, Recycling or Disposal.
"Waste Prevention" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. Waste
Prevention shall not include reduction of already - generated waste through energy recovery,
incineration, or otherwise.
11. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to foster transparency and cooperation between the
Parties and to establish the respective responsibilities of the Parties in a Solid Waste management
System, including but not limited to, planning, Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Disposal..
- 7 -
27
III. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective as of
through December 31, 2040.
IV. APPROVAL
, and shall remain in effect
This Agreement will be approved and filed in accordance with chapter 39.34 RCW.
V. RENEGOTIATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TERM OF AGREEMENT
5.1 The Parties recognize that System Users benefit from Tong -term Disposal
arrangements, both in terms of predictability of System costs and operations, and the likelihood
that more cost competitive rates can be achieved with longer -term Disposal contracts as
compared to shorter -term contracts. To that end, at least seven (7) years before the date that the
County projects that the Cedar Hills Landfill will close, or prior to the end of this Agreement,
whichever is sooner, the County will engage with MSWAC and the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, among others, to seek their advice and input on the Disposal alternatives to be used
after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, associated changes to the System, estimated costs
associated with the recommended Disposal alternatives, and amendments to the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan necessary to support these changes. Concurrently, the Parties will
meet to negotiate an extension of the term of the Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the
long -term Disposal of Solid Waste after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Nothing in this
Agreement shall require the Parties to reach agreement on an extension of the term of this
Agreement. lithe Parties fail to reach agreement on an extension, the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section X111 do not apply, and this Agreement shall remain unchanged.
- 8 -
28
5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Parties may, pursuant to mutual written agreement, modify or amend any provision of this
Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement.
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
6.1 King Countv
6.1.a Management. The County agrees to provide Solid Waste management
services, as specified in this Section, for Solid Waste generated and collected within the City,
except waste eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste recycling activities. The County
agrees to dispose of or designate Disposal sites for all Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste
generated and /or collected within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the
System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules, or regulations, as those laws are described in Subsection 8.5.a. The County shall maintain
records as necessary to fulfill obligations under this Agreement.
6.1.b Planning. The County shall serve as the planning authority for Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste under this Agreement but shall not be responsible for planning for any
other waste or have any other planning responsibility under this Agreement.
6.1.c Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the
operating authority for transfer, processing and Disposal facilities, including public landfills and
other facilities, consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as closure and post -
closure responsibilities for landfills which are or were operated by the County.
- 9 -
29
6.1.d Collection Service. The County shall not provide Solid Waste collection
services within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and agreed to by both
Parties.
6.1.e Support and Assistance. The County shall provide support and technical
assistance to the City consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for a
Waste Prevention and Recycling program. Such support may include the award of grants to
support programs with System benefits. The County shall develop educational materials related
to Waste Prevention and Recycling and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the
educational materials and will make these available to the City for its use. Although the County
will not be required to provide a particular level of support or fund any City activities related to
Waste Prevention and Recycling, the County intends to move forward aggressively to promote
Waste Prevention and Recycling.
6.1.f Forecast. The County shall develop Solid Waste stream forecasts in
connection with System operations as part of the comprehensive planning process in accordance
with Article XI.
6.1 .g Facilities and Services. The County shall provide facilities and services
pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Transfer and
Waste Management plan as adopted and County Solid Waste stream forecasts.
6.1.h Financial Policies. The County will maintain financial policies to guide
the System's operations and investments. The policies shall be consistent with this Agreement
and shall address debt issuance, rate stabilization, cost containment, reserves, asset ownership
and use and other financial issues. The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer System improvements. The policies shall be developed and /or revised through
- 10 -
30
discussion with MSWAC, the Regional Policy Committee, the County Executive and the County
Council. Such policies shall be codified at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan updates,
but may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the Comprehensive Plan process.
6.2 City
6.2.a Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other entity
as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for Solid Waste collection services
provided within the City's corporate limits.
6.2.b Disposal. The City shall cause to be delivered to the County's System for
Disposal all such Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste which is authorized to be delivered to
the System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules or regulations and is generated and /or collected within the corporate limits ofthe City and
shall authorize the County to designate Disposal sites for the Disposal of all such Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste generated or collected within the corporate limits ofthe City, except
for Solid Waste which is eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste Recycling activities
consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. No Solid Waste generated or
collected within the City may be Diverted from the designated Disposal sites without County
approval.
6.3 JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES.
6.3.a Consistent with the Parties' overall commitment to ongoing
communication and coordination, the Parties will endeavor to notify and coordinate with each
other on the development of any City or County plan, facility, contract, dispute, or other Solid
Waste issue that could have potential significant impacts on the County, the System, or the
City or Cities.
31
6.3.b The Parties, together with other Cities, will coordinate on the development
of emergency plans related to Solid Waste, including but not limited to debris management.
VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES
AND OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL: USE OF SYSTEM REVENUES
7.1 In establishing Disposal Rates for System Users, the County shall consult with
MSWAC consistent with Section IX. The County may adopt and amend by ordinance rates
necessary to recover all costs of the System including but not limited to operations and
maintenance, costs for handling, processing and Disposal of Solid Waste, siting, design and
construction of facility upgrades or new facilities, Recycling, education and mitigation, planning,
Waste Prevention, reserve funds, financing, defense and payment of claims, insurance, System
liabilities including environmental releases, monitoring and closure of landfills which are or
were operated by the County, property acquisition, grants to cities, and administrative functions
necessary to support the System and Solid Waste handling services during emergencies as
established by local, state and federal agencies or for any other lawful solid waste purpose, and
in accordance with chapter 43.09.210 RCW. Revenues from Disposal rates shall be used only for
such purposes. The County shall establish classes of customers for Solid Waste management
services and by ordinance shall establish rates for classes of customers.
7.2. It is understood and agreed that System costs include payments to the County
general fund for Disposal of Solid Waste at the Cedar Hills Landfill calculated in accordance
with this Section 7.2, and that such rental payments shall be established based on use valuations
provided to the County by an independent -third party Member, Appraisal Institute (MAI)
certified appraiser selected by the County in consultation with MSWAC.
32
7.2.a A use valuation shall be prepared consistent with MAI accepted principles
for the purpose of quantifying the value to the System of the use of Cedar Hills Landfill for
Disposal of Solid Waste over a specified period of time (the valuation period). The County shall
establish a schedule of annual use charges for the System's use of the Cedar Hills Landfill which
shall not exceed the most recent use valuation. Prior to establishing the schedule of annual use
charges, the County shall seek review and comment as to both the use valuation and the
proposed payment schedule from MSWAC. Upon request, the County will share with and
explain to MSWAC the information the appraiser requests for purposes of developing the
appraiser's recommendation.
7.2.b Use valuations and the underlying schedule of use charges shall be
updated if there are significant changes in Cedar Hills Landfill capacity as a result of opening
new Disposal areas and as determined by revisions to the existing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Site Development Plan; in that event, an updated appraisal will be performed in compliance with
MAI accepted principles. Otherwise, a reappraisal will not occur. Assuming a revision in the
schedule of use charges occurs based on a revised appraisal, the resulting use charges shall be
applied beginning in the subsequent rate period.
7.2.c The County general fund shall not charge use fees or receive other
consideration from the System for the System's use of any transfer station property in use as of
the effective date of this Agreement. The County further agrees that the County general fund
may not receive payments from the System for use of assets to the extent those assets are
acquired with System revenues. As required by chapter 43.09.210 RCW, the System's use of
assets acquired with the use of other separate County funds (e.g., the Roads Fund, or other funds)
13 -
33
will be subject to use charges; similarly, the System will charge other County funds for use of
System property.
VIII. LIABILITY
8.1 Non - Environmental Liability Arising Out -of- County Operations. Except as
provided in this Section, Sections 8.5 and 8.6, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the County's attorneys against
any and all claims arising out of the County's operations during the term of this Agreement and
settle such claims, provided that all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the County thereby are
System costs which may be satisfied from Disposal Rates as provided in Section VII herein. In
providing such defense of the City, the County shall exercise good faith in such defense or
settlement so as to protect the City's interest. For purposes of this Section "claims arising out of
the County's operations" shall mean claims arising out of the ownership, control, or maintenance
of the System, but shall not include claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in
connection with the System or other activities under the control of the City which may be
incidental to the County's operation. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to claims
arising out of the sole negligence or intentional acts of the City. The provisions of this Section
shall survive for claims brought within three (3) years past the term of this Agreement
established under Section 111.
8.2 Cooperation. In the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim under
Section 8.1, the City shall cooperate with the County.
8.3 Officers, Agents, and Employees. For purposes of this Section VIII, references to
City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents of either Party,
- 14 -
34
acting within the scope of their authority. Transporters or generators of waste who are not
officers or employees of the City or County are not included as agents of the City or County for
purposes of this Section.
8.4 Each Party by mutual negotiation hereby waives, with respect to the other Party
only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial
Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
8.5 Unacceptable Waste
8.5.a All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the
City which is delivered to the System for Disposal shall be in compliance with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) (RCRA), chapters 70.95 and 70.105
RCW, King County Code Title 10, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, the
Solid Waste Division operating rules, and all other Federal, State and local environmental health
laws, rules or regulations that impose restrictions or requirements on the type of waste that may
be delivered to the System, as they now exist or are hereafter adopted or amended.
8.5.b For purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to have
complied with the requirements of Subsection 8.5.a if it has adopted an ordinance requiring
waste delivered to the System for Disposal to meet the laws, rules, or regulations specified in
Subsection 8.5.a. however, nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve the City from any
obligation or liability it may have under the laws mentioned in Subsection 8.5.a arising out of the
City's actions other than adopting, enforcing, or requiring compliance with said ordinance, such
as liability, ifany exists, of the City as a transporter or generator for improper transport or
Disposal of regulated dangerous waste. Any environmental liability the City may have for
- 15 -
35
releases of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances or wastes to the environment is dealt
with under Sections 8.6 and 8.7.
8.5.c The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County for any
property damages or personal injury caused solely by the City's failure to adopt an ordinance
under Subsection 8.5.b. In the event the City acts to defend the County under this Subsection, the
County shall cooperate with the City.
8.5.d The City shall make best efforts to include language in its contracts,
franchise agreements, or licenses for the collection of Solid Waste within the City that allow for
enforcement by the City against the collection contractor, franchisee or licensee for violations of
the laws, rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a. The requirements of this Subsection 8.5.d shall
apply to the City's first collection contract, franchise, or license that becomes effective or is
amended after the effective date of this Agreement.
8.5.d.i If waste is delivered to the System in violation of the laws,
rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a, before requiring the City to take any action under
Subsection 8.5.d.ii, the County will make reasonable efforts to determine the parties' responsible
for the violation and will work with those parties to correct the violation, consistent with
applicable waste clearance and acceptance rules, permit obligations, and any other legal
requirements.
8.5.d.ii Lithe violation is not corrected under Subsection 8.5.d.i and
waste is determined by the County to have been generated or collected from within the corporate
limits of the City, the County shall provide the City with written notice of the violation. Upon
such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the violation and prevent similar
future violations to the reasonable satisfaction of the County which may include but not be
- 16 -
36
limited to removing the waste and disposing of it in an approved facility; provided that nothing
in this Subsection 8.5.d.ii shall obligate the City to handle regulated dangerous waste, as defined
in WAC 173- 351- 200(1)(b)(i), and nothing in this Subsection shall relieve the City of any
obligation it may have apart from this Agreement to handle regulated dangerous waste. If, in
good faith, the City disagrees with the County regarding the violation, such dispute shall be
resolved between the Parties using the Dispute Resolution process in Section X1I or, if
immediate action is required to avoid an imminent threat to public health, safety or the
environment, in King County Superior Court. Each Party shall be responsible for its own
attorneys' fees and costs. Failure of the City to take the steps requested by the County pending
Superior Court resolution shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement; provided, however,
that this shall not release the City for damages or Toss to the County arising out of the failure to
take such steps lithe Court finds a City violation of the requirements to comply with applicable
laws set forth in Subsection 8.5.a.
8.6 Environmental Liability.
8.6.a Neither the County nor the City holds harmless or indemnifies the other
with regard to any liability arising under 42 U.S.C. § 9601 -9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or
pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW (MTCA) or as hereafter amended and any state legislation
imposing liability for System - related cleanup of contaminated property from the release of
pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances and /or damages resulting from property
contaminated from the release of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances
( "Environmental Liabilities ").
17 -
37
8.6.b Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create new Environmental
Liability nor release any third -party from Environmental Liability. Rather, the intent is to protect
the general funds of the Parties to this Agreement by ensuring that, consistent with best business
practices, an adequate portion of Disposal Rates being collected from the System Users are set
aside and accessible in a fair and equitable manner to pay the respective County and City's
Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.c The purpose of this Subsection is to establish a protocol for the setting
aside, and subsequent distribution of, Disposal Rates intended to pay for Environmental
Liabilities ofthe Parties, if and when such liabilities should arise, in order to safeguard the
Parties' general funds. To do so, the County shall:
8.6.c.i Use Disposal Rates to obtain and maintain, to the extent
commercially available under reasonable terms, insurance coverage for System - related
Environmental Liability that names the City as an Additional Insured. The County shall establish
the adequacy, amount and availability of such insurance in consultation with MSWAC. Any
insurance policy in effect on the termination date of this Agreement with a term that extends past
the termination date shall be maintained until the end ofthe policy term.
8.6.c.ii Use Disposal Rates to establish and maintain a reserve fund to
help pay the Parties' Environmental Liabilities not already covered by System rates or insurance
maintained under Subsection 8.6.c.i above ( "Environmental Reserve Fund "). The County shall
establish the adequacy ofthe Environmental Reserve Fund in consultation with MSWAC and
consistent with the financial policies described in Article VI. The County shall retain the
Environmental Reserve Fund for a minimum of 30 years following the closure ofthe Cedar Hills
Landfill (the "Retention Period "). During the Retention Period, the Environmental Reserve Fund
- 18 -
38
shall be used solely for the purposes for which it was established under this Agreement. Unless
otherwise required by law, at the end of the Retention Period, the County and Cities shall agree
as to the disbursement of any amounts remaining in the Environmental Reserve Fund. If unable
to agree, the County and City agree to submit disbursement to mediation and if unsuccessful to
binding arbitration in a manner similar to Section 39.34.180 RCW to the extent permitted by law.
8.6.c.iii Pursue state or federal grant funds, such as grants from the
Local Model Toxics Control Account under chapter 70.105D.070(3) RCW and chapter 173 -322
WAC, or other state or federal funds as may be available and appropriate to pay for or remediate
such Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.d If the funds available under Subsections 8.6.c.i -iii are not adequate to
completely satisfy the Environmental Liabilities of the Parties to this Agreement then to the
extent feasible and permitted by law, the County will establish a financial plan including a rate
schedule to help pay for the County and City's remaining Environmental Liabilities in
consultation with MSWAC.
8.6.e The County and the City shall act reasonably and quickly to utilize funds
collected or set aside through the means specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i -iii and 8.6.d to conduct
or finance response or clean -up activities in order to limit the County and City's exposure, or in
order to comply with a consent decree, administrative or other legal order. The County shall
notify the City within 30 days of any use of the reserve fund established in 8.6.c.iii.
8.6.f In any federal or state regulatory proceeding, and in any action for
contribution, money expended by the County from the funds established in Subsections 8.6.c.i -iii
and 8.6.d. to pay the costs of remedial investigation, cleanup, response or other action required
- 19 -
39
pursuant to a state or federal laws or regulations shall be considered by the Parties to have been
expended on behalf and for the benefit of the County and the Cities.
8.6.g In the event that the funds established as specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i -iii
and 8.6.d are insufficient to cover the entirety of the County and Cities' collective Environmental
Liabilities, the funds described therein shall be equitably allocated between the County and
Cities to satisfy their Environmental Liabilities. Factors to be considered in determining
"equitably allocated" may include the size of each Party's System User base and the amount of
rates paid by that System User base into the funds, and the amount of the Solid Waste generated
by the Parties' respective System Users. Neither the County nor the Cities shall receive a benefit
exceeding their Environmental Liabilities.
8.7 The County shall not charge or seek to recover from the City any costs or
expenses for which the County indemnified the State of Washington in Exhibit A to the
Quitclaim Deed from the State to the County for the Cedar Hills Landfill, dated February 24,
1993, to the extent such costs are not included in System costs.
IX. CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
9.1 There is hereby created an advisory committee comprised of representatives from
cities, which shall be known as the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee ( "MSWAC ").
The City may designate a representative and alternates) to serve on MSWAC. MSWAC shall
elect a chair and vice -chair and shall adopt bylaws to guide its deliberations. The members of
MSWAC shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing bodies and shall receive no compensation
from the County.
- 20 -
40
9.2 MSWAC is the forum through which the Parties together with other cities
participating in the System intend to discuss and seek to resolve System issues and concerns.
MSWAC shall assume the following advisory responsibilities:
9.2.a Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive, Solid Waste
Advisory Committee, and other jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of Solid Waste
management and planning;
9.2.b Consult with and advise the County on technical issues related to Solid
Waste management and planning;
9.2.c Assist in the development of alternatives and recommendations for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other plans governing the future of the
System, and facilitate a review and /or approval of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan by each jurisdiction;
9.2.d Assist in the development of proposed interlocal Agreements between
King County and cities for planning, Waste Prevention and Recycling, and waste stream control;
9.2.e Review and comment on Disposal Rate proposals and County financial
policies;
9.2.f Review and comment on status reports on Waste Prevention, Recycling,
energy /resources recovery, and System operations with inter jurisdictional impact;
9.2.g Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators,
cities, recyclers, and the County with respect to its planned and operated Disposal Systems;
9.2.h Provide coordination opportunities among the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, the Regional Policy Committee, the County, cities, private waste haulers, and
recyclers:
- 21 -
41
9.2.i Assist cities in recognizing municipal Solid Waste responsibilities,
including collection and Recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities; and
9.2.j Provide input on such disputes as MSWAC deems appropriate.
9.3 The County shall assume the following responsibilities with respect to MSWAC;
9.3.a The County shall provide staff support to MSWAC;
9.3.b In consultation with the chair of MSWAC, the County shall notify all
cities and their designated MSWAC representatives and alternates of the MSWAC meeting
times, locations and meeting agendas. Notification by electronic mail or regular mail shall meet
the requirements of this Subsection;
9.3.e The County will consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and
issues posed by MS WAC regarding the System, and will seek to resolve those issues in
collaboration with the Cities. Such issues shall include but are not limited to development of
efficient and accountable billing practices; and
9.3.d. The County shall provide all information and supporting documentation
and analyses as reasonably requested by MSWAC for MSWAC to perform the duties and
functions described in Section 9.2.
X. FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
10.1 As of the effective date of this Agreement, the Forum Interlocal Agreement and
Addendujta to Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal Agreement by and
between the City and County continue through June 30, 2028. After 2028 responsibilities
assigned to the Forum shall be assigned to the Regional Policy Committee. The Parties agree that
Solid Waste System policies and plans shall continue to be deemed regional countywide policies
- 22 -
42
and plans that shall be referred to the Regional Policy Committee for review consistent with
King County Charter Section 270.30 and chapter 1.24 King County Code.
Xl. COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
11.1 King County is designated to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and this plan shall include the City's Solid Waste
Management Comprehensive Plan pursuant to chapter 70.95.080(3) RCW.
11.2 The Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and any necessary revisions
proposed. The County shall consult with MSWAC to determine when revisions are necessary.
King County shall provide services and build facilities in accordance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
1 1.3 The Comprehensive Plans will promote Waste Prevention and Recycling in
accordance with Washington State Solid Waste management priorities pursuant to chapter 70.95
RCW, at a minimum.
11.4 The Comprehensive Plans will be prepared in accordance with chapter 70.95
RCW and Solid Waste planning guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology. The plan
shall include, but not be limited to:
11.4.a Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities
required for handling all waste types;
1.4.b Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
I I.4.c Policies concerning waste reduction, Recycling, Energy and Resource
Recovery, collection, transfer, long -haul transport, Disposal, enforcement and administration;
and
- 23 -
43
1 1.4.d Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item c above.
11.5 The cost of preparation by King County of the Comprehensive Plan will be
considered a cost of the System and financed out of the rate base.
11.6 The Comprehensive Plans will be "adopted" within the meaning of this
Agreement when the following has occurred:
11.6.a The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council; and
1 1,6.b The Comprehensive Plan is approved by cities representing three - quarters
of the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties to the Forum
Interlocal Agreement. In calculating the three - quarters, the calculations shall consider only those
incorporated jurisdictions taking formal action to approve or disapprove the Comprehensive Plan
within 120 days of receipt of the Plan. The 120 -day time period shall begin to run from receipt
by an incorporated jurisdiction of the Forum's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan, or,
lithe Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the Comprehensive Plan from
the Forum without recommendation.
1 1.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council, but not
receive approval of three- quarters of the cities acting on the Comprehensive Plan, and should
King County and the cities be unable to resolve their disagreement, then the Comprehensive Plan
shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and the State Department of Ecology will
resolve any disputes regarding Comprehensive Plan adoption and adequacy by approving or
disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or any part thereof.
11.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If any City disagrees with such determination, then the
City can request that the Forum determine whether or not the City is affected. Such
- 24 -
44
determination shall be made by a two - thirds majority vote of all representative members of the
Forum.
11.9 Should King County and the affected jurisdictions be unable to agree on
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed amendments shall be referred to the
Department of Ecology to resolve any disputes regarding such amendments.
1 1.10 Should there be any impasse between the Parties regarding Comprehensive Plan
adoption, adequacy, or consistency or inconsistency or whether any permits or programs adopted
or proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the Department of Ecology shall
resolve said disputes.
XII. MITIGATION
12.1 The County will design, construct and operate Solid Waste facilities in a manner
to mitigate their impact on host Cities and neighboring communities pursuant to applicable law
and regulations.
12.2 The Parties recognize that Solid Waste facilities are regional facilities. The
County further recognizes that host Cities and neighboring communities may sustain impacts
which can include but are not limited to local infrastructure, odor, traffic into and out of Solid
Waste facilities, noise and litter.
12.3 Collaboration in Environmental Review. h1 the event the County is the sole or co-
Lead Agency, then prior to making a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), the County will provide a copy of the SEPA environmental checklist, if any,
and proposed SEPA threshold determination to any identifiable Host City (as defined below) and
adjacent or neighboring city that is signatory to the Agreement and that may be affected by the
- 25 -
45
project ( "Neighboring City ") and seek their input. For any facility for which the County prepares
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the County will meet with any identified potential
Host City (as defined below) and any Neighboring City to seek input on the scope of the EIS and
appropriate methodologies and assumptions in preparing the analyses supporting the EIS.
I-lowever, nothing in this Section shall limit or impair the County's ability to timely complete the
environmental review process.
12.4 Collaboration in Project Permitting. If a new or reconstructed Solid Waste facility
is proposed to be built within the boundaries of the City ( "Host City ") and the project requires
one or more "project permits" as defined in chapter 36.70B.020(4) RCW from the Host City,
before submitting its first application for any of the project permits, the County will meet with
the 1-Iost City and any Neighboring City, to seek input. IIowever, nothing in this Section shall
limit or impair the County's ability to timely submit applications for or receive permits, nor
waive any permit processing or appeal timelines.
12.5 Separately, the County and the City recognize that in accordance with 36.58.080
RCW, a city is authorized to charge the County to mitigate impacts directly attributable to a
County -owned Solid Waste facility. The County acknowledges that such direct costs include
wear and tear on infrastructure including roads. To the extent that the City establishes that such
charges are reasonably necessary to mitigate such impacts, payments to cover such impacts may
only be expended only to mitigate such impacts and are System costs. If the City believes that it
is entitled to mitigation under this Agreement, the City may request that the County undertake a
technical analysis regarding the extent of impacts authorized for mitigation. Upon receiving_such
a request, the County, in coordination with the City and any necessary technical consultants, will
develop any analysis that is reasonable and appropriate to identify impacts. The cost for such
- 26 -
46
analysis is a System cost. The City and County will work cooperatively to determine the
appropriate mitigation payments and will document any agreement in a Memorandum of
Agreement. If the City and the County cannot agree on mitigation payments, the dispute
resolution process under chapter 36.58.080 RCW will apply rather than the dispute resolution
process under Section XII of the Agreement.
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 Unless otherwise expressly stated, the terms of this Section XIII shall apply to
disputes arising under this Agreement.
13.2 Initial Meeting.
13.2.a Either Party shall give notice to the other in writing of a dispute involving
this Agreement.
13.2.b Within ten (10) business days of receiving or issuing such notice, the
County shall send an email notice to all Cities.
13.2.c Within ten (10) business days of receiving the County's notice under
Subsection 13.2.b, a City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to participate in
the Dispute Resolution process.
13.2.d Within not less than twenty -one (2I) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the initial notice of dispute issued under Subsection 13.2.a, the County shall
schedule a time for staff from the County and any City requesting to participate in the dispute
resolution process ( "Participating City ") to meet (the "initial meeting "). The County shall
endeavor to set such initial meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities and to
the County.
- 27 -
47
13.3 Executives' Meeting.
13.3.a if the dispute is not resolved within sixty (60) days ofthe initial meeting,
then within seven (7) days of expiration of the sixty (60) -day period, the County shall send an
email notice to all Participating Cities that the dispute was not resolved and that a meeting of the
County Executive, or his /her designee and the chief executive officer(s) of each Participating
City, or the designees of each Participating City (an "executives' meeting ") shall be scheduled to
attempt to resolve the dispute. It is provided, however, that the County and the Participating
Cities may mutually agree to extend the sixty (60) -day period for an additional fifteen (15) days
if they believe further progress may be made in resolving the dispute, in which case, the
County's obligation to send its email notice to the Participating Cities under this Subsection that
the dispute was not resolved shall be within seven (7) days of the end of the extension. Likewise,
the County and the Participating Cities may mutually conclude prior to the expiration of the sixty
(60) -day period that further progress is not likely in resolving the dispute at this level, in which
case, the County shall send its email notice that the dispute was not resolved within seven (7)
days of the date that the County and the Participating Cities mutually concluded that further
progress is not likely in resolving the dispute.
13.3.b Within seven (7) days of receiving the County's notice under Subsection
1 3.3.a each Participating City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to
participate in the executives' meeting.
13.3.c Within not less than twenty -one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date ofthe notice of the executives' meeting issued under Subsection 13.3.a, the County
shall schedule a time for the executives' meeting. The County shall endeavor to set such
- 28 -
48
executives' meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities that provided notice
under Subsection 13.3.b and to the County.
13.4. Non - Binding Mediation.
13.4.a If the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days of the executives'
meeting, then any Participating City that was Party to the executives' meeting or the County may
refer the matter to non- binding meditation by sending written notice within thirty -five (35) days
of the initial executives' meeting to all Parties to such meeting.
13.4.b Within seven (7) days of receiving or issuing notice that a matter will be
referred to non- binding mediation, the County shall send an email notice to all Participating
Cities that provided notice under Subsection 13.3.b informing them of the referral.
13.4.c Within seven (7) days of receiving the County's notice under Subsection
13.4.b, each Participating City shall notify the County in writing if it wishes to participate in the
non - binding mediation.
13.4.d The mediator will be selected in the following manner: The City(ies)
electing to participate in the mediation shall propose a mediator and the County shall propose a
mediator; in the event the mediators are not the same person, the two mediators shall select a
third mediator who shall mediate the dispute. Alternately, the City(ies) participating in the
mediation and the County may agree to select a mediator through a mediation service mutually
acceptable to the Parties. The Parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by
the mediator or mediation service. For purposes of allocating costs of the mediator or mediation
service, all Cities participating in the mediation will be considered one Party.
13.5 Superior Court. Any Party, after participating in the non - binding mediation, may
commence an action in King County Superior Court after one hundred e
- 29 -
ighty (1 80) days from
49
the commencement of the mediation, in order to resolve an issue that has not by then been
resolved through non - binding mediation, unless all Parties to the mediation agree to an earlier
date for ending the mediation.
13.6 Unless this Section XIII does not apply to a dispute, then the Parties agree that
they may not seek relief under this Agreement in a court of law or equity unless and until each of
the procedural steps set forth in this Section XIII have been exhausted, provided, that if any
applicable statute of limitations will or may run during the time that may be required to exhaust
the procedural steps in this Section XIII, a Party may file suit to preserve a cause of action while
the Dispute Resolution process continues. The Parties agree that, if necessary and Wallowed by
the court, they will seek a stay of any such suit while the Dispute Resolution process is
completed. lithe dispute is resolved through the Dispute Resolution process, the Parties agree to
dismiss the lawsuit, including all claims, counterclaims, and cross - claims, with prejudice and
without costs to any Party.
XIV. FORCE MAJEURE
The Parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement
when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond the control of either Party
( "force majeure "). The term "force majeure" shall include, without limitation by the following
enumeration: acts of nature, acts of civil or military authorities, terrorism, fire, accidents,
shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, industrial, civil or public disturbances, or labor
disputes, causing the inability to perform the requirements of this Agreement, if either Party is
rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event to perform or comply with any
obligation or condition of this Agreement, upon giving notice and reasonably full particulars to
- 30 -
50
the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the
extent practicable to restore normal operations.
XV. MERGER
This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representation and /or
agreements between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes
the entire contract between the Parties [except with regard to the provisions of the Forum
Interlocal Agreement]; provided that nothing in Section XV supersedes or amends any
indemnification obligation that may be in effect pursuant to a contract between the Parties other
than the Original Agreement; and further provided that nothing in this Agreement supersedes,
amends or modifies in any way any permit or approval applicable to the System or the County's
operation of the System within the jurisdiction of the City.
XVI. WAIVER
No waiver by either Party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or
construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of any subsequent breach
whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
XVII. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or
person except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be
entitled to be treated as a third -party beneficiary of this Agreement.
- 31 -
51
XVIII. SURVIVABILITY
Except as provided in Section 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, Section 8.6.c, except 8.6.ciii and Section 8.6d,
no obligations in this Agreement survive past the expiration date as established in Section III.
XIX. NOTICE
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a notice required to be provided under
the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested or by
personal service to the following person:
For the City:
- 32 -
52
For the County:
Director
King County Solid Waste Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, Washington 98104
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each Party on the date
set forth below:
CITY of KING COUNTY
(Mayor /City Manager) King County Executive
Date Date
Clerk- Attest Clerk- Attest
Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date Date
53
Attachment B
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the timeframe for Cities to adopt the new ILA?
By mid -2014 the Solid Waste Division will propose rates for the 2015/16 rate period. Financial
policies developed in collaboration with the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee will
inform the rate study. To allow sufficient time to develop those policies and complete the rate
study, the County needs each City to act on the ILA by April 30, 2013.
2. What is the purpose of the non - binding statement of interest?
The County is asking each City to provide a non - binding statement of interest that indicates
likely participation in the new ILA by January 31, 2013. This information will be helpful to the
County as it moves forward with a variety of planning efforts, including updating the Draft
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
3. What are the capital project financing needs in 2013 and 2014?
Presently, the division has $75 million in Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) that will expire on
February 28, 2012. Those BANs will be converted to long -term bonds. Later in 2013, an
additional $13 million will be required for anticipated capital project expenditures. In 2014, it is
anticipated that $35 million will be needed.
4. How does City participation in the new ILA affect capital project financing?
Financing for transfer system capital improvements will be primarily by long -term bonds.
Ensuring adequate revenue to repay the bonds is critical and that revenue is directly dependent
on City participation in the system. If enough cities sign the extended ILA, the County will issue
bonds of 20 years or longer (out to 2040), which will mean lower per ton fees. Conversely, if
cities do not choose to extend the ILA, bonds will only be issued out to 2028, which will increase
rates. A mix of longer and shorter bonds may be possible if some cities extend the ILA and
others do not.
5. What are the implications for a City that chooses not to sign the new ILA?
Cities that choose to remain with the original ILA that expires in 2028 will pay rates that include
the additional amount needed to pay for the shorter bonds. The additional amount will be in
the range of $7 to $9 per ton. Cities that choose to remain with the original ILA will also not
receive the benefits of the new ILA, including those related to potential environmental liability.
6. How long do cities have to adopt the new ILA?
In order to move forward with development of financial policies that will inform the 2015/16
rate period and other planning efforts, the County needs each City by April 30, 2013 to decide
whether to sign the new ILA.
7. How would insurance coverage and liability reserves be established?
The insurance coverage and liability reserves provided for under the new ILA would be
established based on what is commercially available and determined appropriate in consultation
with the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC - note that the name of this
committee changes in the new ILA from the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory
Committee or MSWMAC).
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
54
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Frequently Asked Questions
8. Does this ILA lock Cities into the current Transfer System Plan?
No. In the new ILA the County commits to provide facilities and services pursuant to adopted
plans. The ILA also acknowledges that plans for transfer station improvements may be modified.
9. How does the ILA relate to the comprehensive solid waste management plan?
The ILA provides a framework for Cities and the County to work collaboratively to maintain and
update the comprehensive solid waste management plan and for adoption of the plan. Specific
policies, plans, and strategies are not included in the ILA.
10. What about disposal after Cedar Hills closes?
The ILA provides a framework for Cities and the County to plan for disposal post -Cedar Hills. At
least seven years before the date that the landfill is projected to close, the County will seek
advice and input from MSWAC and others on disposal alternatives.
11. Does the new ILA address Cedar Hills landfill rent?
The ILA establishes a clear process for rent for Cedar Hills, limiting when rental payments can be
changed, requiring a certified appraisal process be followed, and seeking review and comment
from the Cities. It clearly states that the solid waste system shall not pay rent to the general
fund for use of other county properties for transfer stations.
12. What if my City has more questions about this new ILA?
If you have any questions or would like to schedule a briefing, please call or email Pat
McLaughlin at 206 - 296 -4385 or pat.mclaughlin@kingcounty.gov.
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
55
Attachment C
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
• Accountability
• Transparency
• Durability: address long -term needs
• Simplicity
Part I: Contract Term, Capital Financing, and Ability to Terminate Agreement in Advance
Contract Term
ILA is extended 12.5 years, through December 2040.
As ofJune 2012, there would be 28.5 years remaining on the contract.
Bond Term
How long could the financing
term be for bonds funding
the Transfer Station
improvement plan?
20 to 28 years, depending on when each series of bonds to finance the transfer
station projects is issued.
Disposal Fees (tonnage
rates)
Significantly lower cost per ton is possible as compared to the "no extension" option
The longer the term, the higher the total price paid for the improvements (more
interest paid).
Negotiated ILA Extension
An ILA extension is likely to be necessary at some point during the term of the
amended ILA in order to accommodate a cost - effective long -term disposal solution
after Cedar Hills closes.
The ILA will include language describing the parties' intent to enter into negotiations
to extend the ILA before Cedar Hills closes, but after such time as the region has
made a decision on the long -term disposal option; that decision will require
amending the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP). The parties
could choose to begin the negotiations before ratification of the CSWMP
amendment is complete.
The amended ILA cannot compel either party to agree to a future extension of the
term.
If Cedar Hills closes on
schedule (2025), what
happens if the ILA is not
The County would have to provide disposal at another location for 15 years (2025
through 2040). The City will continue to be part of the County system during that
time. This is a relatively short time period and as a result the assumption is that
costs would likely be considerably more expensive than disposal at Cedar Hills.
extended again?
Early Termination
Will cities have the ability to
terminate the ILA early?
No.
If a city has the ability to terminate the ILA early, the County will, in exchange, need
to be able to recoup from that city, at a minimum, all the debt service costs
associated with the terminating city's share of the transfer station system upgrades.
Not included because the cost of prepaying debt service for a city's share of transfer
station system improvements is likely to be so expensive that no city would choose
King County Solid Waste Division
Page 1 of 5
December 21, 2012
56
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
King County Solid Waste Division Page 2 of 5
December 21, 2012
57
to exercise this option. It would imply the city would prepay for a 50 -year asset
after a few years, and the terminating city would not be assured of having access to
the system assets after leaving.
What if some cities don't
agree to extend the !LA?
Non- extending cities would be in a different customer class than extending cities.
Non- extending cities would be charged rates to ensure their portion of transfer
station debt is fully repaid by June 2028. As a result, their rates would be $7 -$9 per
ton higher than for cities extending the ILA.
Part 2: Governance
Cities Advisory Committee
The Cities advisory committee (MSWMAC) is memorialized within the ILA as the
Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC). Its structure and
operations are no longer controlled by County Code. It has the same composition,
same rules as today:
• Each city may appoint a delegate and alternates to MSWAC.
• MSWAC retains its existing responsibilities.
• MSWAC will elect a chair and vice - chair, and adopt its own bylaws.
• MSWAC will be staffed by the County.
• MSWAC remains an advisory body. It will coordinate with the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC) and provide advice to SWAC as it deems
appropriate. MSWAC will also provide recommendations to the County
Executive, County Council, and other entities.
The County agrees to consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and issues
from MSWAC, including but not limited to development of efficient and accountable
billing practices.
Regional Policy Committee
(RPC)
The role of the RPC is not affected by the amended and restated ILA. The RPC will
retain its current charter role in acting on Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan (CSWMP) amendments and financial policies. Its existing responsibilities as the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum will continue through the end of the current ILA in
June 2028. After 2028 those responsibilities will go to the RPC.
Part 3: Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Process
The CSWMP is reviewed and
amended as needed. Several
years before the Cedar Hills
Landfill closes, the CSWMP
will be amended to include
language defining the
regional disposal option.
The ILA will confirm current practice that the County Council acts to approve the
CSWMP subject to ratification, in the same way that Countywide Planning Policies
are now first approved by the County and then subject to ratification.
The County will act after seeking input from MSWAC, among others.
Once the County action is effective, the ratification period would run for 120 days.
King County Solid Waste Division Page 2 of 5
December 21, 2012
57
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
Ratification Requirement
The current ILA requires that
jurisdictions representing
75% of the contract city
population must approve
CSWMP changes. The 75% is
determined based on those
cities taking a position.
The negotiating team considered modifying the ratification requirement. Because
of the difficulties of administering two different ratification processes if some cities
extend and others do not the current process was left unchanged. It has been used
several times over the term of the agreement without significant problems.
Part 4: Other Issues
Parties Obligations to
Communicate
The parties will endeavor to notify each other in the event of the development of
any plan, contract, dispute, use of environmental liability funds or other solid waste
issue that could have potential significant impacts on the City and /or Cities, the
County and /or the regional solid waste system.
Emergency Planning
The County and the cities will coordinate on the development of emergency plans
related to solid waste, including but not limited to debris management.
Grants
The ILA will include a provision confirming that grants to cities in support of
programs that benefit the Solid Waste system are a permissible use of system
revenues.
Mitigation
The ILA will acknowledge that solid waste facilities are regional facilities and host
cities and neighboring cities may sustain impacts for which there are three types of
mitigation:
1. When new facilities are sited, or existing facilities are reconstructed, mitigation
will be determined with advance input from host communities and neighboring
cities, and per state law. The County will collaborate with potential host cities
and neighboring cities in advance of both the environmental review and
permitting processes, including seeking advance input from such cities as to
potential impacts that should be addressed in scoping of environmental
studies /documents, or in developing permit applications.
2. With respect to existing facilities, the County will continue the full range of
operational mitigation activities required under law (odor and noise control,
maintenance, litter cleanup, etc.).
3. The ILA will recognize the rights of cities to charge the County for direct impacts
from operations consistent with State law (RCW 36.58.080). Cities that believe
they are entitled to such mitigation may request the County undertake technical
studies to determine the extent of such impacts; the County will undertake
analysis it determines is reasonable and appropriate. The costs of such studies
will be System costs. Dispute resolution would occur per the state statute
provision, rather than the ILA dispute resolution provisions.
Cities retain their full regulatory authority with respect to design, construction or
operation of facilities within their jurisdiction.
King County Solid Waste Division
Page 3 of 5
December 21, 2012
58
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
Cedar Hills Landfill Rent
The ILA will acknowledge that rent is charged to the Division for use of the Cedar
The County began leasing the
Hills Landfill, and clarify how the rent will be determined.
Cedar Hills Landfill from the
The County will continue to charge the Solid Waste System rent for use of the Cedar
state in 1960 at a time when
Hills Landfill. The Landfill is a General Fund asset.
the solid waste function was
The ILA will ensure that Landfill rent will be based on third party professional
still part of County General
valuations using accepted MAI valuation principles. Cities will have input into the
Fund operations. Throughout
selection of the appraiser and will have an opportunity to review and comment on
the '60s, `70s and into the
data inputs provided by the System to the appraiser for purposes of conducting the
'80s, the solid waste system
was operated as part of the
appraisal.
General Fund through a mix
The December 2011 appraisal setting the rent value for the period from 2013
of County General Fund
through 2025 (the current estimated end of the Landfill's useful life) will be adjusted
monies and solid waste fees.
downward to ensure that the System is not charged for Landfill capacity that was
In 1983, the County formally
included and paid for by the System per the previous (2004) appraisal. The same
began the effort to transform
adjustment will be made with respect to any future appraisal.
the solid waste system from
a General Fund operation to
The ILA will define a clear process by which the value of Cedar Hills to the Division,
and the associated rent, may be revalued during the Agreement, and will ensure
a self - sustaining utility
engagement of MSWAC in that process.
enterprise, fully funded from
Rent costs are an operating cost to the Division that will be incorporated into solid
system revenues-- primarily
waste rates. MSWAC will have input on all rate proposals, as well as the specific
tipping fees charged at the
schedule of rent payments derived from the new appraisal.
Cedar Hills Landfill. The
The County will commit to not charge General Fund rent for any transfer station
Landfill was acquired by the
property now in use, and will not charge General Fund rent for assets acquired in
General Fund from the state
in 1992 and remains a
the future solely from System revenues. Assets owned by other County funds (e.g.,
the Roads Division, or other funds) will be subject to rent (and vice versa). Any
General Fund asset. The
revenue generated from System owned assets will be treated as revenues of the
General Fund began charging
the Division for the use of
this asset in 2004.
System.
Financial Policies
The County will develop financial policies to guide the Division's operations and
investments. The policies will address debt issuance, cost containment, reserves,
asset ownership and use, and other financial issues. The policies will be developed
through discussion with MSWAC, RPC, the County Executive and the County Council.
Such policies will periodically be codified at the same time as CSWMP updates, but
may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the CSWMP update cycle.
Dispute Resolution
The ILA will replace the current dispute resolution provisions involving State DOE
(State DOE is not willing to serve the role ascribed to it in the current ILA) with more
standard provisions, similar to those used in other multi -party County ILAs. In event
of a dispute, the first step will be for staff from the parties to meet. lithe issue is
not resolved, then the City Manager /Administrator from the city(ies) and the
County Executive will meet. If the issue is still not resolved, non - binding mediation
may be pursued if any party so chooses, prior to pursuing formal legal action. All
cities will be notified of disputes at each step, and may join the dispute if they so
choose. Costs of mediation will be split, with the cities (all those participating in the
matter) paying half of the costs and the County paying half of the costs.
King County Solid Waste Division
Page 4 of 5
December 21, 2012
59
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
Liability
SCA Principles as agreed to by Executive Constantine form the basis for the
Environmental Liability section. The County and the Cities agree that System - related
costs, including environmental liabilities, should be funded by System revenues
which include but are not limited to insurance proceeds, grants and rates. A
protocol for payment of liabilities if and when they arise is established including:
• Insurance, if commercially available with cities as additional insured
• Any reserves established for environmental liability shall survive for 30 years
after the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill.
• Grants to the extent available
• Developing a financial plan including a rate schedule in consultation with MSWAC
Specific language is included indicating it is the intent of the parties to protect their
general funds from Environmental Liabilities to the greatest extent feasible.
Severability
Team agreed not to include a severability section. Effect is that in the event one
section of the contract is found to be invalid the Parties will need to meet to discuss
how to remedy the issue
Survivability
No obligations of the agreement shall survive the expiration of the contract except
portions of the liability section including:
• A three year obligation for tort related operational liability
• Any insurance in effect at the end of the agreement shall continue for the
term of the policy
• Reserve fund is retained for 30 years following Cedar Hills closure
Flow Control
Language in Section 6.2 is simplified to state "The City shall cause to be delivered to
the County disposal system..." It does not specify what means the City shall use to
accomplish this.
County Commitment to
Transfer Station Plan
Section 6.1.g is amended to state "The County shall provide facilities and services
pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste
Transfer and Waste Management Plan as adopted..."
Long -Term Bonds
Section 6.1.f includes "The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer system improvements." This recognizes that in the past these
improvements have been partially funded by cash. This section also includes a
commitment to develop, through discussions with MSWAC, financial policies.
King County Solid Waste Division
Page 5 of 5 December 21, 2012
60
Attachment D
L.41
King County
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Solid Waste Division
December 28, 2012
TO: The Honorable Jim Haggerton, Mayor
City of Tukwila
RE: Request for Non - Binding Statement of Interest in signing an Amended and Restated Solid
Waste Interlocal Agreement by January 31, 2013
We are requesting a non - binding statement from each City as to whether you are interested in
signing the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement. To accomplish this, we are
asking that a representative of the City complete the form below, indicating which option best
reflects the City's position at this time, and email it to me by close of business January 31, 2013.
Again, this is non - binding, but will assist the County in planning.
Please respond by completing the information below:
City of Tukwila Non - Binding Statement of Interest with Respect to Entering into the Amended
and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement.
It is likely that my City will sign the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement.
It is not likely that my City will sign the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement.
My Name/Title: Date:
If you have any questions about the attached materials, please call or email me at 206 - 296 -4385
or pat .mclaughlin@kingcounty.gov.
cc: David Cline, City Manager, City of Tukwila
Frank Iriarte, Deputy Public Works Director, City of Tukwila
Deanna Dawson, Executive Director, Suburban Cities Association
Diane Carlson, Director of Regional Initiatives, King County Executive Office
Christie True, Director, Department of Natural Resources & Parks (DNRP)
Kevin Kiernan, Assistant Division Director, Solid Waste Division (SWD), DNRP
Diane Yates, Intergovernmental Liaison, SWD, DNRP
61