Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/09/20 Item 15 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. Meeting Date /6/ 9/20/94 ITEM TITLE: Report on Solid Waste Tip Fee for Non-Member cities to the Solid Waste Authority SUBMITTED BY: Deputy city Manager Krempl REVIEWED BY: City Manager 6 ~f~~~/5 Votes: Yes No ..1L On September 15, 1994, the San Diego Solid Waste Authority voted to effectuate new rates at the landfills -- 3 non-member city contract options as well as a daily rate of $74/ton. The new rates will start on October 1, 1994. The only exception is that the start date for the rate for passenger vehicles and pickups hauling waste to the landfills will be delayed until October 17, 1994. The rate for members of the Authority will remain at $55/ton. This agenda statement provides a status update and recommendation to Council as to how to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: To not execute any of the Authority's contract options but to remain a user of the system at the day rate of $74/ton until such time as a transfer station or pod system can be implemented. It is further directed that staff explore options to retain residential rates at the current levels in the interim and report back to Council. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A. DISCUSSION: As earlier reported to Council, none of the non-member cities opted to sign a non-member contract as of September 15, 1994. This includes the cities of Carlsbad, Coronado, Escondido, La Mesa, Imperial Beach, Oceanside, San Marcos and Santee, plus Chula vista. EI Cajon withdrew from the system on July 1, 1994. Most of the cities testified and submitted letters to the Authority requesting additional time, aSking that rates be held at $55/ton, asking that rates reflect actual costs to operate the system, and asking that negotiations occur between the Authority and the coalition of non- member cities. All of these requests fell on deaf ears and the Authority opted to press ahead with their original proposals and left the time frame unchanged, setting an effective date of October 1, 1994 with a short delay for self-haul vehicles noted above. with regard to the day rate, it was set at $74/ton but the possibility of increasing it anywhere up to $133/ton was referred to the Audit and Budget Subcommittee for evaluation and report by January 1, 1995. /.s-- 1 A. AUTHORITY OPTIONS A synopsis of the various options -- becoming a member and the three contract options are outlined and evaluated below. Also, see the draft attached contract, Attachment A. for additional information. OPTION #1 Join the Solid Waste Authoritv as a Member This option poses the exact same concerns that were before the council in May, 1994 when a decision had to be made whether or not to sign the Solid Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement. The issues are the operating costs and debt service for the NCRRA plant, system liabilities, the prospect of bonding by the Authority and a long-term commitment, and the onerous requirements and difficulty of ever withdrawing once one becomes a member. Below are the relevant issues from the staff report when previous Authority membership was discussed with the Council. (1) Transition of Countv Assets. Obliaations and Liabilities The city has repeatedly expressed concerns over liability issues to be incurred by Members assuming the assets, obligations and liabilities of this system. Of particular concern is the possibility of exposure of the member agencies' General Funds, outside of the CERCLA responsibility that currently exists. Additionally, staff feels the City has not yet received satisfactory disclosure on the status of the County's liabilities and pending litigation. Finally, city membership in SDSWA would include responsibility for the NCRRA facility. As Council has previously discussed, this facility is a major financial drain on the entire system. Extrication from this responsibility would require paying off the original construction cost, debt service costs, and other costs to the owner/operator. If the plant stays open, the current operating terms are unfavorable and expensive to the system. There are stiff penalties if minimum target waste deliveries to the facility are not met. (2) Wastestream Commitment The agreement contains a section dealing with "flow control." Throughout discussions over the past few years, concerns have been expressed by this City and others about the legality of flow control. In addition, this clause lays out the possible enforcement situations the City might have to undertake in order to meet the terms of the wastestream commitment. /S~2 It is of particular concern that the Agreement would require the City to take over collection of the municipal trash, if necessary to properly direct the flow. The likelihood of this occurrence is not the main point of discussion, but, rather, the binding nature of such undesirable terms. Also, the commitment eventually Agreement has no fixed term, so wastestream to SDSWMA is permanent unless a member agency can afford to withdraw. (3) withdrawal of Parties The withdrawal provisions are complicated and potentially difficult. The Agreement does not clarify what happens to "freed up" capacity created when a jurisdiction leaves the system, the rates that existing member agencies pay when this occurs, and whether or not the departing entity receives any credit for having extended the life of the landfill system. In addition, given the recent experience of the City of EI Cajon, the probability exists that the withdrawing agency will be charged a share of future system liabilities at the point of departure. If bonds have been issued by SDSWMA (which is a likely scenario), those obligations will also need to be met by the withdrawing party. Thus, the prospect of joining the Authority as a member is riddled with risks and doubts. OPTION #2 sian a 3-vear deal at $65/ton (no CPI increases) with the obliaation that if the Authoritv can reduce rates to $48/ton at that point. the citv would automaticallY sian a 10-vear extension. The rates would be ! 5% of the $48tton, plus an additional $lOtton for non-member consideration. Thus the rate at the end of year three could be $60.50. The major problem with this option is that it constitutes a l3-year deal rather than a 3-year deal. Increases during the la-year extension would be subject to CPI and change in law or regulations. Another concern that has been expressed is that by signing a contract with the Authority, a further nexus for charging NCRRA or other system liability costs might be construed. Finally, the assumptions, which were the basis of the rate study performed by Deloitte Touche and the contract options specified, are not valid. /{;-3 Assumotions (1) that the System will be composed of sixteen (16) cities and the county. Oceanside will likely pullout on september 21, 1994. Escondido and Carlsbad are looking at transfer station options. other cities are exploring "pod" truck systems or leasing the WMS "pod" system from Waste Management (the hauler for El cajon and Oceanside) as possible alternatives cheaper than the Authority rates; (2) that the total mixed waste tonnage for the System for FY 1994- 95 would be 1,160,000. Obviously, that tonnage figure is not going to be realized. It may be doubtful that the Authority can adjust fixed costs or downsize the system quick enough to match quantity reductions in tonnage, thus requiring rates to rise; and (3) that the commercial haulers from the city of San Diego would continue to use the JPA's System at the same level as in the past. Due to the rate differential between San Diego and the Authority ($43 vs. $55), private haulers have already stopped using the Authority system because it is simply cheaper to dispose at Miramar even with the additional transport cost from South Bay. OPTIONS #3 AND #4 Five Year Contract ootion at $72.50 olus CPI or Ten Year Contract Ootion at $67.50 These options have received very little interest from non-member cities. The ten-year period is too long and the five-year rate is such that it is economically unattractive. It would take 7-10 years to amortize the additional costs, once a transfer station or a pod system were operational, following the 5-year term with the Authority. B. TRANSFER STATION OPTION On July 19, 1994, the city council approved contracting with John Sexton Sand and Gravel and Chula vista Sanitary for the first phase of a transfer and materials recovery facility. The scope of work incudes siting, conceptual design and permitting. The council approved business terms with Sexton and authorized that a contract be executed. The contract was held pending a rate decision by the San Diego Waste Authority on September 15, 1994. The contract can now be signed and proceed. On September 6, 1994, the City council narrowed the possible sites from 14 to 3 and directed further analysis and review. Staff expects to be back in a few weeks with additional site information. / [;- 4 The rates in Sexton's original RFP response for transfer, haul and disposal inclusive were $46.30 for truck haul and $53.03 for rail haul. While these rates are not guaranteed at this point due to the way the contract has been phased, they clearly indicate that significant savings from current and future Waste Authority rates can be anticipated. One further idea being explored with Sexton is the possibility of financing the cost increase between the current rates and what the Authority will charge as the day rate for the time gap until the transfer station is operational. This might still result in a very competitive and cost-effective rate over the long term. In sum, it is recommended that the transfer station option be pursued as expeditiously as possible. C. POD SYSTEM OPTION On September 8, 1994, Laidlaw Waste Systems submitted a proposal for a pod system to transport waste directly to a yet-to-be determined disposal site. A rate of not to exceed $53/ton was quoted. Equipment purchase and production might take up to 40 weeks to achieve. On september 13, 1994, Council directed staff to explore the proposal in greater depth. A letter (Attachment B) has been sent to Laidlaw requesting more detailed information. One of those requests again asks if Laidlaw can finance any interim rate increases and fold them back into their rate structure paid over time, thus again avoiding passing any rate increase on to the rate payers at this time. There may be other financing alternatives to accomplish the same thing as well. It is recommended that staff continue to investigate the pros and cons of the pod system and its possible role as a component of the overall Chula vista Solid Waste system. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS AND IMPACT ON RATEPAYERS Attachment C summarizes and compares the options discussed above, focussing on the relationship between the tip fee to be expected and an estimated monthly cost of refuse and recycling service for a single-family household (SFH). FISCAL IMPACT: It is difficult to accurately forecast or effectively describe the fiscal impact of the options presented for consideration. For illustrative purposes, the following 5 year cumulative impact of the two most appropriate choices are compared below: If:--- 5 option #3- 3 Year Non-member Contract with Authoritv Assumptions: o 120,000 tons annually remain constant o No CPI increases o Authority achieves committed reductions and City enters into non-member contract in Year 4 Cost first 3 years @$65/ton Cost next 2 years @$60.40/ton $23,400,000 $14,496,000 TOTAL $37,896,000 Transfer station option Assumptions: o 120,000 tons annually remains constant o No CPI increase o Day rate to Authority remains fixed for first 18 months o Does not include costs for household hazardous waste program and LEA services after first 18 months (estimated at approximately $1/ton extra for both services) o Transfer station cost based on Sexton proposal for truck haul to Campo Landfill Cost first 18 months @$74 Cost next 3-1/2 years @$46.30 $13,320,000 $19,446,000 TOTAL $32,766,000 /{'- 6 //~-}' SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Attachment A FAX COVER. SHEET ;>[:;.pLEASE EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF FAX/TIME SENSITIVE Date~ No. ofPa&es 'if (JneJudlll& Cover) Name: ..NDH.- tttJ.6b'-t" i~~,,",~~u!. ~ f-!~rr~""~.v..;~ Aaency: ~A(I,b....D I (J..'.v.,l-" ", r""",,.,J,,, J;l t....,;... Fu.u!:J", -r~..'::.J ~M1" J,." M'....., $"....ee I So.\.Il m..reo:J1--.J:. ,......5.ie.. ~""-- Pax Number:' VA...;,..< " Te1ephone: Number: . \/04 r1..., SUBJECT:CIlH~ llt"'C~~(.... :' ...................... Sender: Tom Webster/Lin Wurb.. Solid Waste Authori~. 1600 Pacific Hh'hway Room 215. San niel!o CA 92101 Fax Number: 619/531-5794 Telephone: Number: 619/531-6174 COMMENTS: ~ Por your Information _ Confidential _ This materlalls beIng forwanled. per your request _ Please schedule the following ~g on your c:alendar: Please call to diic:uSl further. . ADDmONAL COMMENTS: c./..~A.1N"_J.lI..P::,ti-' :7~~ ,-V- "-k 11 - r""- I\\......"'j-u'''' J!:' Iii. . _. mr...~'?"~(... ';"1'1"1 ~~(' ~ 4G.o...Ih<,. 1'.ooI.....A..6L-CtN le..~LA..rlf....::,y'_. Or'';'s ~ h..~ ~~~O WII~fJ2 1"(t5~t lil f'.t. 'f'or~t-'~ SUkD~. ~lt4$C. k ^.f' hal'-"....~ CM~:,.6lA.~ ~ Tv.. !1tIIt. d ~lC.(~~~. -r;:: tJ~~U'-~;Q~,~ uJuAs - " l~ ., It the lDConnatioD )'ou receive Is lBealble or Incomplete, please call 531-6174. /r;~1 BO/tO'd ttO'ON 60:Zt ~6'6Z 6n~ A1I~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS SOUD WASTE AUTHORITY DRAFT AN AGREEMENTBETWEEN SAN DIEGO SOLID WASTE AUI'IIORITY AND THE CITYOF PROVIDING FOR TIP FEE RATES AND OTIIER TERMS AND CONDmONS THIS AGREEMENTis made this _day of - 1994 (the "El'fective Date"), by IIIId betwee4the SAN DIBOO SOLID WASTE AUTHORI1'l', (hereinafter referred to u . Authority"), IIIId the CITY OF ' (hereinafter referred to .. .City"). RECITALS WlIEREAS, the Authority was formed under ajoint powers authority agreement ("the IPA Agreement.) between the County of $anDieao and the Cities of Del Mar, Encinita.s. Lemon Grove, National City, Fowl)', Solana Beach and Visla on June t, 1994; and WRJrR'lJ:"'~,pursuant to Government Code Section ~oo ct. seq., the Authority may exercise the common powers of its member agencies, whicb are further described ~ the JPA AlfCCIIlent; IIIId . . . WHmtE.As, the JPA AJreemenI provides Cor the _rer to the Authority of the operation, l1llUIaPII1ent, control IIIId OWDer$bip of the County 80Iid WIlle system (the .Regional System"): and 1 waE.REAS, the Authority is responsible b the administration of the Reiional System: and WllEREA.S, the Authority may properly establish rates and (ees (or the use of the e ~.' _ ::'RcgiO~ JS)'stem~ incltidi.tli ~tion of the cosb of opemtion and;'~ :CMd-lh&: ~ ',-.: .. - settins"QfColieijxiridtiii user -feeCwtUch shan bC'applicabli' 10 ihCi;eiicles ana piartiesh' desirina continued use of the Re&iona1 System without corresponding particlpatiOll In the Authority: WHEREAS, tho PartieI cIeIln to enlel' into lIIl llreemenl for the purpose of estab1ishln& the riahts and obliptioas .pp1icable to the City's use of the Rc&1onal System over tIw..term Qf .thj.A.aM~: .J!l4 _._ _' - - o..____ . WIlEREAS, It is the Intent oIthe parties that the City shall be offered an opportunitY to becolM . volin. member of the Authority in COI1iunction with the success of the Authority In manqin& the Rcatonal System In a manner that effects an lICtual reduction in the c:octl of Operatill. and maintaining the Regional System. 1 ~ /(-? BO/ZO'd 110'oN Ol:ZI ~6'6Z 6n~ AII~DHln~ 31S~A GIlDS NOW I TRllRltFORE,In conaldcradon of die ~ts and obllptlons of each of the Parnell hel'CUllder, the Parties agree" as follDwl: 1. Non-M..mhHo CIty TIn J'H RAt~A The parties qrec that the Cily of Ihall continue its we of the Regional $yam for the di~ of ill munlclpa1 lOUd waste, which thai! be o( a type aencrally accepled for disposal at munlc:ipal landfills. The City qreet to pay a Base Fee for we of \be Regional System ofSixty-fiveDol1ars (S6S.00) pee ton ohotid waste delivered (the "Due Foe-) for a period of duM (3) years from the effective date of this Aareement (the "BIJc Period"). Durill8 1be Base Period, the Base Fee shall be inc:reased by the Adjusted CPr. The Adjusted CPI will be in 8CCOI'dance with the Consumez Price Index for the then current year, which Is applicable to the San Dleao Urban Area, -minus the cPt effective on .1994. 2. Imu.' The wm of this Aareement shalt be for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Dalle of thia Agnlemcnt. 3. C~'. Contlnl1lnl1 Obllatl01lll to R_ln with ~)'df'm. A. Conditional MembershiD Obliption. ,. --~ --" ..::. .. ~-' -':~ On or befOlC three (3) years from the Effective Dale, the Authorily may reduce the Base Fee to Forty-eipt DoIla,. ($48) per Ion or less (the -Reduced Fee"); provided howevez, that the Reduced Fee may, at the election of the Authority, include a S" increase from the Forty-eiaht Dollar ($48) amount In accordance with actual chanaes in the costs of operatina and OiftalriWiUna-'tbe- ~onal System. I,~: d -l~ ,I ".l.;<' -', .:~,- ~ ,__>. ... ...._ _... _ -r.... -. .~. - .....-~ --~ ,_. .. _.~ - ,-.. B. Nnn- of Settil\' af TIP Fee Rate. Authority shall serve written notice to City of the Reduced Fee and the exteGdecl term tip fee applicable to ItIlVices to be provided under this ~ment for the subsequent fourth (411) year by not later than sixty (60) _ ~p~r,'-9,~_tef!lli_natfm dateof_~e 1hrce <3tyear ~'- --- ----- 2 /5""-; BO/~O'd llO'ON Ol:ll ~6'6l 6n~ AII~OHln~ 31S~~ OI10S c~ T~nnlftSltfnn RA~- (Yt HI,h~ Tin Fee. In the event that II!e Authority bas DOt served the notice provided for in mbparagmpb B by the dale sixty (60) day. prior to the termination elate of 1I1i. Apwment. III obliplions mcI riahll as set forth in !hi. A,reement .hall then automatl.cally tcnninate. D. Rec:l....-I Pee Achieved/City Membenhlp or Tell. YeIII' JixtMgion. On lIOtiee by tile Authority lhat the reduced fee has been acllieved either: 1. City abaIl noli1Y the Authority ot ill deciaioo tq become a voting member of the Authority ie accordance with the procedures and term. of the JPA Agreement, ,or 2. City and Authority aaree thatthia Agn:em~t. shall automatically extend for a period of ten (10) years. B. Tin Pee Revision ~ I. If the City becomes a volin, member of the Authority tho tl})-t'eo shall be the fee paid by the voting members of the Authority and this AJIeement ahall teonlnate. 2. If the Aareemcnt II extended for ten (10) years, thCll the Base Fee ihaJl be adjusled to the sum of the Reduced Fee plus Tell. Dollara pee too ($10), which amount ahaIl be paid by City durina the fourth year followina the Effective Date. Thereafter, the Base Fee shall be the 111m of the Reduced Fee plus Ten Donars per ton ($10) ptu. the CPl. ~~~~:~l~o ~l;~'~ Ji~_~ ~l../.~'-..;,. ..."" -',', ~:;<:.:~ J,,'t.;.I~ ""'0 ,- -,,--.,- ."...-.. 3:-- "-'tbe-tipf."may be" nu1fiCi adjusted by tbe "7luthority'"P from time to time during the extended term as necessary to reftect costa from dlanses in federal, atate or local law or oc:c;urrina due to .Coree lIIl\leure. events, includina but DOt limited to acts ofOod, natun! diaasten, or other ClIWtrophic events. -f- 3 /~~ / cJ SO/vO"d 110'ON 11:Zl V6'6Z 6n~ ~lI~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS P. ~ NNw of Decision . City ibal1 DOtity the Authority In writina at lcut thirty (30) days prloc to the leI'IlIination of this Asreement of lIS declslon to either become a votlna member of the Authority or to continue use of tho Rqional Sy&tem undu the extended lICrJ1\ of this Aarecment. It City e1ects to become a member of the Authority, It sball complete ~ to join the Authority durin& the thirty (30) day period fonowinS the expiratioo date of thi. Aareement. G. Periodic Unmle.t . 'l1Ie Authority aarea to prepare Rqional Syl1em Reports, which shall be delivered to City OIl oc \)efolll July 30 of each year. Eacb Re&ional System Report shall identify the financial slal\ll of the Jle&iorlal System and provide detailed information u to tho progress of the - Authority In rclChina the Reduced Fee. The Regiooa1System Report abaII be prepared in a.:;~rdance wiih the audit RquUementa .of the JPA Agreement. The Authority shall prepare prompt and complete responses to" questions received (rom Cily with respect to any Regional Sysll:m Report. 4. City'. Waste Flow. City aarees to deliver, or arrange 10 have delivered, allllllCeptable waite aenerated within its municipal boundaries 10 Authority's/County's system facilities. A. Chan~e in Law. "f, .-. .;,-.:_-' c It a change or interpretation in applicable law impairs or prec1udes either Party f'rom comply!na with 1hia Section, such Party shall UIe its best efforts to the extent practicable to effectuate eucutive, leJislativc or judicial chanle in or relief from said change of law so u to enable City to lawfully resume this ,.~'~'. IObliietiOJl'to:-de1fYVWUleto~facilities. l,_~<.:".l,^.j .:....;"". .1r",_" ..... _..~ _... .,.. .... _ _ ._..~ _ _ ... _~'.' ~ . _ ow' ...._ ..... " .- . .' .~_.. B. """,",,,Ineatlon . Authority aarees to indemnify City from the rasonablc costs, fcea and ~ iaeurrcd in defCllCli"a any le&al cha1Ien,e brouaht to eI\loin the enfo~mcnt of Section .. of this Agreement. .................~.~. ".-_..., .---.,.... 4 ---- / J -II BO/SO"d llO'ON ll:Zl ~6'6Z 6n~ ^lI~OHln~ 31S~~ GI10S C. ex"".ptlon for V""W'llni Acdvlde.. Notwithstanding anything in this Section to th~ ~trary I City sball have the naht to recycle any IOlid waste by any means Idectcd by City, and any such rKycled mal&rial Iball be exduclecl flOm Ibis diIected waste flow contractual obligatioo. 5. AuChoritv'.Servlce OblkladoDl. Authority, throu&h its JPA Agreement poweR, willprovide, or awse to be provided, the service of manaaement, h8nd1ing and disposal of all IOlidwaste aencratcd by its member1 and non-members choosinl to contract for system crvi<:cs. , Nothinl in thi. AlfCClment shall be deemecl to prohibit or preclude Authority from providing manasement, handJini and disposal or lOUd waste generated outside the County Raion, or preclude the dispoIal of I)'ltem directed waste at dispoaal facilities outside the region. In the event that a change ill applicable law impairs or precludes the Authority from c:omplyina with this obligation, the Authority shall use its best efforts. to the ,extent practicable, to effectuate eltcculive, Iqmalive or illdicial change' in or mllef from the applicability of such .law SO as to enabtethe Authority tawfVlIy to ~ume compliance with this obllgatioo as lOOn as possible following the change in applicable law. The eltercise of such best efforts by the Authority unci<< such clrcumllanCCl "'all be deemed to be suffICient to satisfy this oblilaUon. 6. SevBRh&Utv. In the event that II IUbsl3ntive provision of this Agreement "'all be determined to be invalid, lIIegal or unenforceable in any respect, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in lood faith such amendments, modifications or IUpplemenu to thi. Agreement or such other " u. ~ > appropriate liCtioii 'oM' Illa1f,' -eo the maximum elttent practicabW i 4ft, ,-Jijllt 4> ..iichi j. ',.- -. dC:tenitinatrori,' "linpTemCnt aner aivecffCCi to~iDiCOtioDsOf1hC'Pariicl' as re1I.cc:tar hemn:"' If neaotladonl when held in good faith fail, the Parties witt have the riah' to terminate thi. ACreement. 7. Notices. .,fill lIQlioes,~or ~ punuant fO this .A&rcen\C!lt shall be In wrIdng,._.M!. - notices, demand. and nq,ueatI 110 be IIIIIt to any Party ahaIl be deemed to have been ptupedJ afven 01' aerved 011. the date ICtUaI1y ncelvecl, If penooally served or deposited bi the Unlted Statel mail,lIddressecl to IIICh Party, postage prepaid, qlstcrl!d or cert1flec1 with return ftlCeipt requestecl, at the addresses identified below. s SO/90'd llO'oN Zl:ZI ~6'6Z 6n~ /6~/~ ^lI~DHln~ 31S~~ GIlDS TO AUTHORITY: San Dieco Solid Waste Authority Attention: Mr. Tom Webster Interim OerIeral Manager 9621 Ridachaven Court San Diego, CA 92123 TO crn': . I. Atf.on1ew' Fees. In the event of any action or proceeding at law or in equity between Authority and City to e.nforce any provision of this Agreement or to protect or establish any right or remedy of Authority or City, the unsuccessful party to slIch action or proceedina shall pay to the prevallin& party, all coats and eltpcnscs, including without IimilatiOl1, RllISOI1able attorneys' and paraJeaals' fees and expenses, Incurred in such action or proceeding and in any appeal in conneCtion therewith by IUch prevailing party, whether or not such action, proccccIin& or appeal is proscc:u1edto judgment or other (mal determination, together wIth all casU of enforcement and/or collection of any judgment or other relief. ,. Entire Afl'l!MIcnt. This AgreeIlUll1l, together with any other writte.n docllment referred to or contemplatccl herein, embodies the entire Agreement and unclerSWlding between the Parties relating to the IUbjcct matter berct.o and may be modified only by written agreement signed by all of the Parties. 10. Authority to Execute. ~ > _: . '" I. ~Eacla if~ .wan'llDis".dW it has the authority to enter ln~'.thi. ~eatic,l. G ~ -.- c ..-. "., ~ '.-..._,- . ',' ..... ''r'' ....... ~.. -- -~, _. ' ~' -.~ ., ",~!._.'.~" --', - . .._- . 11. Ueadlnes. The captions and hcadin&s in this Agreement are for COIIVCIIience OIIly and shall not define or limit the provisions hereof. 12. Wal!~~. H'_' No breach of any provisiOl1 herein can be waived unlal in writing. Waiver or any one breach of any provision helein Iha11 not be cleemed to be a waiver or any other broach of the 181I\8 or other provision hereof. 6 /:5-:'-/;3 BOILO'd 110'ON ~l:~t ~6'6~ 6n~ AII~OHln~ 31S~~ OIloS 13. R"..-Jles. All Partla heteto thaIl have the right to c:ommenc:e any ICtion at law or equity, Includina speclftc pe.rtormance, eo remedy a breach of the terms barein, provided that neither Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement except .. provided ~in" , IN WITNESS WIIEREOI', the Autlaity &lid the City have signed this Agreement .. or this date first;=t forth above. A,U'l1IORlTYI SAN DIEGO SOLID WASTEA,11THORITY By Chairman CITY: CITY OF By ~~.f.~'~ . ~~ _,' f~;~~ 7~'c~ -~t r'1....:'-.:.-J,.,.:. .:.J..::..c......'1 ....... 1__ -......-........,.. "".- ..-...-...... ", -. -..... .,... -.... _.....- -- .-... ... 7 -.. ._.~.' -."-_. - ---~ eO/SO"d ttO'ON ~t:~t P6'6~ 6n~ /:5~/?j-:;4 AlnloHln~- 3.i.s~l'\a-IlOS ~\(/~ :- ~~ - ~~-~~ --- Attachment B CllY OF CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER September 14, 1994 VIA FAX 421-0841 Mr. Jim Weaver, Market General Manager Laidlaw Waste Systems P. O. Box 967 Chula Vista, CA 91912 RE: New service Vehicle Disposal Option Dear Mr. Weaver: On september 13, 1994, the Chula vista City Council acknowledged receipt of your September 8, 1994 proposal for a "pod" system service option to meet our solid waste needs. The request was referred to staff or additional evaluation. I would appreciate your responses as soon as possible to the following questions/issues and any additional information you may have: 1. What is the cost breakdown of the $53/ton tip fee figure you quoted between haul, disposal and amortization cost of the truck equipment you need to purchase? 2. What disposal sites/rates have you pursued? 3. When will a model of the truck equipment be available to look at? 4. How can the ordering time for the equipment be reduced, if possible? Can any other system equipment be utilized to minimize the purchase of new chassis? 5. Can you expand on the positive impact implementation of a unit based pricing system would have on the quantity of new equipment needed? 6. Can the equipment arrival be phased in such that segments of the waste stream can be withdrawn from the county system sooner than the total 40 week delivery period? 7. What are the business terms that Laidlaw might desire as a consideration for providing the equipment? 8. Please confirm the capacity of the truck and trailer and what waste stream could not be handled? 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691-5031 . FAX (619) 585-5612 @ PoIt..eor..-Rtc:ycltdPap.< ,,- . /5>)5 9. What kind of contract term and with what kinds of escalation is the disposal part of the $53jton tied to? 10. What impact would a short-term only usage of a disposal site have on the rates you quoted? 11. Please comment on Laidlaw's willingness to finance the cost of the tip fee increase to Chula vista for the time gap before the system can be implemented (Le., say the difference between $55jton and $74jton for 10 months). What effect would that have on your overall rate? 12. How long does it normally take to amortize your equipment cost? 13. What response to the proposal have you received from Imperial Beach? Would it be your intent to use the equipment anywhere else? 14. Any other information you might have? Thank you. Sincerely, 4 ~A '7/' George Krempl Deputy city Manager /}~ GK:mab / S-~ /0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ \ ~ Comparison of options and Impact on Ratepayers Attachment C TIP FEE/TON Authority options #1. Member $55 #2. 3 yr. Non-member $65 $60.40 #3. 5 yr. Non-member contract $72.50 #4. 10 yr. Non-member contract $67.50 Transfer station option $74 for 18 mos., $46.30 (est. truck) $53.03 (est.rail) "Pod" system onlY $74 for 10 mos., $53 (est.) after SFH RATE. COMMENTS $17 . 27 Responsible for all system liabilities including NCRRA. No assurance where tip fee will go as various cities pullout and tonnage decreases. $18.63 $18.00 Either 3 or 13 yrs. After Yr. 3, subject to increases in CPI and change of law. Assumes the City has full liability for NCRRA and closure, post- closure. $19.65 $18.97 $19.85 $16.09 $17.00 Possibility of long-term contracts at low disposal rates with only CPI increases. Possibility of host fees to city from transfer station. $19.85 $17 . 00 still eyaluating. . SFH rate is based on monthly cost beginning 11/1/94 and includes cost of refuse, yard waste and curbside recycling.