HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 02/04/2013 (3) I
Public Works Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Dana Ralph+Dennis Higgins+Elizabeth Albertson, Chair
•
K E N T WAsI,I I4�roN February 04, 2013
4:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Paae
01. Approval of Minutes Dated January 14, 2013 YES None 03 03
02. King County Solid Waste - Interlocal Agreement YES Gina Hungerford 15 07
03. Contract/AmTest, Inc. - Routine Bacteriological YES Sean Bauer 05 35
Water Sample Collection
04. Information Only/Green River Levee - Update NO Mike Mactutis 15 39
Unless otherwise noted, the Public Works Committee meets at 4:00 p.m. on the 1"& 3rd Mondays of each
month. Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, 98032-5895.
For information please contact Public Works Administration (253) 856-5500.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at
(253) 856-5725 in advance.
For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
z
This page intentionally left blank.
3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, January 14, 2013
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Committee Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Committee members Dennis Higgins and
Dana Ralph were present. The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m.
Committee member Dana Ralph arrived before discussion item 5. Committee
member Ralph gave her concurrence on items 1 - 4.
Item 1 - Approval of Meetinq Minutes Dated January 7, 2013:
Committee member Higgins MOVED to approve the minutes of January 7,
2013. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair Albertson and
PASSED 3-0, with Committee member Ralph's concurrence.
Item 2 - Local Hazardous Waste Management Program - Grant:
Gina Hungerford Conservation Coordinator noted that the Seattle/King County
Health Department's Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant is an
annual grant that covers collection of hazardous waste at three special recycling
collection events for residents and local businesses. In the past, these events have
successfully diverted hazardous materials from landfills and/or removed them from
resident's homes and property.
Some of the hazardous items collected at the events include: Refrigerators and
freezers, used oil, antifreeze and other petroleum products, as well as batteries. In
addition, the grant pays for some staffing, printing and mailing costs.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to accept the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant in
the amount of $31,442.22 for 2013, and establish a budget accordingly,
subject to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and
Public Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair
Albertson and PASSED 3-0, with Committee member Ralph's concurrence.
Item 3 - Contract/Olympic Environmental Resources - Recycling:
Gina Hungerford Conservation Coordinator noted that the contract with Olympic
Environmental Resources will provide assistance with the implementation of the
City of Kent's Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs, including the spring,
summer, and fall special recycling and collection events, outreach for business and
multi-family waste reduction and recycling programs, rain barrel and compost bin
sales and education to benefit the citizens and businesses of Kent. These programs
provide a cost savings to Kent's customers. Kent staff will continue to concentrate
on the residential sector.
4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, January 14, 2013
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Agreement with Olympic
Environmental Resources for Waste Reduction and Recycling Activities and
Programs for 2013 in an amount not to exceed $93,392.25, subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works
Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair Albertson and
PASSED 3-0, with Committee Chair Ralph's concurrence.
Item 4 — Contract/AMEC Consultants — 64th Ave S Channel Improvements:
Alex Murillo, Environmental Engineering Supervisor noted that next summer, the
Public Works Department will be installing two box culverts within the 64th Avenue
South drainage channel. The culverts are located underneath the Union Pacific
Railroad spur track that crosses the 64th Avenue South channel.
This is phase II of the project, which will help reduce flooding by increasing flow
capacity and improving storm water conveyance along 64th Avenue South from
South 228th Street to the Green River Natural Resources Area.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to sign the Consultant Services Contract Agreement with AMEC in an
amount not to exceed $19,096.15 to provide geotechnical engineering
services for the 64th Avenue South Channel Improvements Project, subject
to final terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public
Works Director. The motion was SECONDED by Committee Chair Albertson
and PASSED 3-0, with Committee member Ralph's concurrence.
Item 5 — Contract/GEI — Briscoe Desimone Levee:
Ken Langholz Design Engineering Supervisor, stated that under this consultant
services agreement GEI will provide final engineering design for sheet pile walls and
will prepare plans and specifications for the construction. The contract will only be
executed if the flood wall option is chosen as the preferred flood protection method
versus a setback levee. We expect the Flood Control District will make a decision
on this in the spring.
After much discussion the following motion was made.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to recommend Council authorize the
Mayor to authorize the Mayor to sign a Consultant Services Contract with
GEI Consultants Inc. in an amount not to exceed $736,544 to provide
structural and geotechnical engineering services for final design of the
Briscoe/Desimone Levee Project, subject to final terms and conditions
acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director and subject to
approval by the King County Flood Control District of the City's sheet pile
wall proposal and subject to approval and release of $7 million grant funds
from the King County Flood Control District to the City of Kent and subject
5
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Minutes of Monday, January 14, 2013
to an acceptable agreement with the City of Tukwila for work within
Tukwila. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Ralph and
PASSED 3-0.
Item 6 — Proposed SE 256th Street Local Improvement District 364 —
Resolution of Intent:
Mark Howlett Design Engineering Manager noted that the project cost estimate is
approximately $7.0 million and that we hope to form a Local Improvement District
(LID) for approximately $2 million.
The City delayed the LID formation process in order to pursue additional funding
sources, however, sources of revenue are scarce and very competitive and the City
could not find additional funding for this project. We are now ready to move
forward with the LID formation.
Committee member Ralph MOVED to recommend the Council adopt the
Resolution of Intent setting a Public Hearing date for March 5, 2013 on the
formation of Local Improvement District 364. The motion was SECONDED
by Committee member Higgins and PASSED 3-0.
Item 7 — Coal Trains — Impacts to the City of Kent:
Steve Mullen Transportation Engineering Manager presented information on a
proposed coal export facility in northwest Washington that could negatively impact
the City. Committee members were provided an opportunity to co-sign a comment
letter on the Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
Committee member Higgins MOVED to approve and endorse the Coal
Export Facility Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Letter and
authorize the Mayor and council members to sign the document. The
motion was SECONDED by Committee member Ralph and PASSED 3-0.
Item 8 — Information Only/Public Works Department Managerial Review:
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director introduced Marci Hollingsworth who works for
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Hollingsworth has been on a
developmental assignment for the FAA's Executive Potential Program at the city and
will give a brief overview of her time here.
Information Only/No Motion Required
The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Cheryl Viseth
Council Committee Recorder
6
This page intentionally left blank.
7
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: January 23, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: February 4, 2013
From: Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator
Through: Kelly Peterson, AICP, Environmental Conservation Supervisor
Mike Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager
Subject: King County Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
Item - 2
Motion:
Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Amended
and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement to extend the original
Agreement between King County and the City of Kent, subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works
Director.
Summary:
The Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (ILA) was the product
of a two-year joint effort of approximately 37 cities advising the Metropolitan Solid
Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and King County.
With the existing ILA to expire in 2028, MSWMAC's goal in extending the ILA was to
provide the best service to residents and businesses at the lowest cost. The twelve
year extension facilitates use of 20 year bonds to finance the reconstruction of
transfer stations the county and cities committed to in the 2007 Solid Waste
Transfer System Plan and will help keep rates lower than they otherwise would be if
financing had to be obtained based on shorter term bonds.
Additional revisions in the ILA reflect changes in environmental laws, expand the
participating cities' role in system planning through MSWMAC, mitigate liability risks
to all parties, address governance issues, and provide for a process to address the
future closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill closes (projected to occur in 2025).
Budget Impact:
No budget impact.
8
This page intentionally left blank.
9
a
King County
Department of Natural Resouroos and Parks
Solid Waste Division
December 28,2012
TO: The Honorable Suzette Cook,Mayor
City of Kent
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 responder completing the information below:
City of Kent 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 At 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(a�,kingcounty.gov.
cc: John Hodgson, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Kent
Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator, City of Kent
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
10
!Gang County
Solid Waste Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center
201 South Jackson Street,Suite 701
Seattle,WA 98104-3855
206-296-6542 Fax 206-296-0197
M Relay; 711
I
December 28, 2012
The Honorable Suzette Cook
Mayor, City of Kent
220 4th Ave S.
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor Cook:
With this letter I am transmitting to you the Amended and Restated Solid)Paste Inierlocal
Agreement(new ILA)for your review and approval. As you may know, King County (County)
and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Commnittee,have been working
together over the past two years to extend the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement of 1988(original
ILA),which your City has signed. After intensive negotiations, a'eam of City and County
representatives has reached agreement on a new ILA that will foster cooperation in our regional
solid waste systein. This agreement extends the original ILA by 12.5 years, from June 2028
through December 2040, which will keep rates lower by allowing for longer-term bonding for
capital projects.
The new ILA includes several significant enhancements over the original ILA. It deals much
more effectively with liability, establishing a protocol for payment of Environmental Liabilities,
if and when they arise, including insurance and reserves. The intent to protect both City and
County general funds from Environmental Liabilities to the greatest extent feasible is explicit.
Other improvements over the original ILA include:
® Commitment to the continued involvement of the Metropolitan Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (MSWAC)
® An expanded role for Cities in system planning, including long-term disposal
alternatives and in establishing financial policies
® A dispute resolution process, which includes non-binding mediation
® An acknowledgment that solid waste facilities are regional facilities and host
cities and neighboring cities may receive mitigation for impacts
Also included with this transmittal is a non-binding statement of interest. We are requesting this
non-binding statement from each City as to whether you are interested in signing the new ILA.
11
The Honorable Suzette Cook
December 28, 2012
Page 2
I
To accomplish this, we, are asking that you complete the attached form, indicating which option
best represents your 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.
I
In order to develop, in collaboration with MS WAC, financial policies that will affect the next
rate study,the County needs each City to act on the ILA by April 30, 2013. Briefing materials to
assist you in making a decision can be found here City ILA Briefing Package. Upon request,we
would be happy to provide briefings to you, your City Council, or staff.
If you have any questions or would like to schedule a briefing, please call or email me at
206-296-4385 or pat.mclauglrlin a kingcotui ov .
Sincerely,
WU
:
Pat D. McLau n
Division Direcr
Enclosure
cc: John Hodgson, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Kent
Gina Hungerford, Conservation Coordinator,City of Kent
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, S WD,DNRP
i
12
Amended and Restated.Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the timefrome 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 forthe 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
whetherto 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
13
Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Frequently Asked Questions
B. 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.
i
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.mclaughlln@kingcounty.gov.
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
,I
14
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Overview
These briefing materials are intended to provide information to assist in Cities' review of the Amended
and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement(new ILA). The County and the Metropolitan Solid Waste
Management Advisory Committee have been working together overthe past two years to extend the
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement of 1988 (original ILA),which every City in King County,excluding
Seattle and Milton, has signed. After intensive negotiations, a team of City and County representatives
has reached agreement on a new ILA that will foster cooperation in our regional solid waste system.This
agreement extends the original ILA by 12.5 years,from June 2028 through December 2040,which will
keep rates lower by allowing for longer-term bonding for capital projects.
The new ILA includes several significant enhancements over the original ILA. It deals much more
effectively with liability, establishing a protocol for payment of Environmental Liabilities, if and when
they arise, including insurance and reserves.The intent to protect both City and County general funds
from Environmental Liabilities to the greatest extent feasible is explicit.Other improvements over the
original ILA include:
o Commitment to the continued involvement of the City advisory group, renamed the Metropolitan
Solid Waste Advisory Committee(MSWAC)
® An expanded role for Cities in system planning, including long-term disposal alternatives and in
establishing financial policies
i
® A dispute resolution process, which includes non-binding mediation
a An acknowledgment that solid waste facilities are regional facilities and host cities and neighboring
cities may receive mitigation for impacts
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.
By mid-2014,the Solid Waste Division will propose rates for the 2015/16 rate period. Financial policies
developed in collaboration with MSWAC will inform the rate study. To allow sufficient time to develop
those policies,the County needs each City to act on the ILA by April 30,2013.
I
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
15
i
L
f
; a
m
4 -
m 5
e I
£L I
k G
K
r
?4 �
{
ma,: a
w
pt,
'.�..
I
17
V) QJ
vy
c� _
4- ' 4-j
QJ
QJ
u
cn
o em m
e>C 3 1 M
En
aJ Q
LZ
® > _0 0 >
< UQ�
_ f
4-j Ul
.� • . c CL
cy c�
V) N �cn
CLA 0 r..j cn
r4
f�I ® .
f�1 ® w •�
Ul �>
I ® m ®
� 4-' U
u u
AMR
a Vo % +�
I
cu 4-
O — O O C E C ++
® O O {-�- V a) v=5 O V � S S L O
U aJ (Lf g fu L, O O o
a pLn
g o e a L ro o a
0- *, � � U 0- -C
° ® $ -° �°
_ � ro > E u ? U
— o � tin ao � u 'n o o s
E n p
O C O U = C O L. � 7 U U 4— O
•� O O O U O L L S O
O QJ f0
— U
mom, S � '•� � C � .� � O � � +-+ O I
Y y® L O h0 b C 4® $ p "a C cu O
U Q C ru C O _O = N 4J O 6
O bA y >` a ,� •H (z O v7 O 110 O
(-+ L O C a-' O U -
r cn m O �, O -a ;+� -'O O fct3 �n
,__• -O C O G 0 N
O O O O LZ Y t7A .N O O (6 � v- ®)
QJ w bA O > ro co (U -0 o L ® � � � � �
(O O O U •? S �' (6 m (S -O m S
4J
S S
s.. i C O O 0-, 4 O yCD
Q O ya,
41 p .' J J S •L Qj S C O SO X
O O
cn I- w- F-
® o o a o
i
i
19
s�
vt ,ram_
c®
(D
L �
0- CLO
bA Q) >- � ® L
= .0 U �_ U
® O _ .� O
c� �A
�. � �+ ® Q �, ® �
U, Ln N
E If' O
v c � QJ O
Q � -� °O O tu0
i tw a-J � L Oe Q)
Ja
® O O 4-J O
4-'
O
' ) Q ` �
�
O -a .O°s' O ® O X
X
w CL D U
s G
q�
® W
ro �
® �" .5
(� ��+ ® �
(�
(�
® ® E ro
C: L m Ln i�
[�
w aj
4-1
c�
® aJ
OJ aj a)
x
� ® a) �!D
C: L�) u C
" ® m I-'
® 4-J _ 4-j
m Ell
_ _
M 4 U d-1
v ai ® �' � bm
® ,0 ;n
Sao m ( Ln
®1 ® C
CJ
j ® >
® V) X
o Lu ai L-I ro aJ m o ® m
i
21
jl
cu C:
0
C
® ® w U)
4—' E
v
+-j
® ® ca
>
aJ 4
b
_ 4-3 �
® L C: ® t
CU ® + a ® 4—J
U 4-+ N �0 ® ® Q)® cn
0
Q) 0) Ln
E
E txoe
w
> Fi L
® C: �
ru ro
E
F= E
ra
Ln �o
� m ®
10
CD Ln E
� CJ
® °� U
�i QJ
®bm u5
0 N
ou
c
W V)
U
0 Q
Ill �
23 .
c�
E
a) Q1 cY7 p Ln
a�
C c O a O
O O C
r_
u
i
® E c0 Om O O N
O T ® O ul
O
-V} i!� C . tu CiA
®_ ® � p ® .® N E .N
O ,
Ln -0 C
® ® O C6 cn E v� co
0 Qq � � — c L.- O c L vn
Ln O O Ln
.L, � i5
> O O ® taA O ®
cn "' O > O M Ln
O O a) O cn ® +� O
4 ' M O ® � i
4-+ a) cn O O O
O O O O �_ O ,w O O. E '
m V O. a w O,. U U
0 0 0 0 o s
�a✓II �
4Sd j
it
�®
n
m
°
C� Q}
d-j
® 6n
1
°U
I
Q Q} ai
m M
°cap0 U
u u
25
Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement.
between ling County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
® Accountability o Durability: address long-term needs
Transparency ® 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 of June 2012,there would be 28.5 years remaining on the contract.
Bond Term 20 to 28 years, depending on when each series of bonds to finance the transfer
How long could the financing station projects is issued.
term be for bonds funding
the Transfer Station
improvement plan?
Disposal Fees(tonnage Significantly lower cost perton is possible as compared to the "no extension' option
rates) The longerthe term,the higherthe 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 The County would have to provide disposal at another location for 15 years (2025
schedule(2025),what through 2040). The City will continue to be part of the County system during that
happens if the ILA is not time. This is a relatively short time period and as a result the assumption is that
extended again? costs would likely be considerably more expensive than disposal at Cedar Hills.
Early Termination No.
Will cities have the ability to If a city has the ability to terminate the ILA early,the County will, in exchange, need
terminate the ILA early? 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
26
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
to exercise this option. It would imply the city would prepay for a 50-year asset
i
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 Non-extending cities would be in a different customer class than extending cities.
agree to extend the ILA? 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:
e 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 SWAG 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 - The role of the RPC is not affected by the amended and restated ILA.The RPC will
(RPC) 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 ILA will confirm current practice that the County Council acts to approve the
The CSWMP is reviewed and CSWMP subject to ratification, in the same way that Countywide Planning Policies
amended as needed. Several are now first approved by the County and then subject to ratification.
years before the Cedar Hills The County will act after seeking input from MSWAC,among others.
Landfill closes,the CSWMP
will be amended to include Once the County action is effective,the ratification period would run for 120 days.
language defining the
regional disposal option.
King County Solid Waste Division Page 2 of 5 December 21, 2012
27
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
Ratification Requirement The negotiating team considered modifying the ratification requirement. Because
The current ILA requires that of the difficulties of administering two different ratification processes if some cities
jurisdictions representing extend and others do not, the current process was left unchanged. It has been used
75%of the contract city several times over the term of the agreement without significant problems,
population must approve
CSWMP changes.The 75% is
determined based on those
cities taking a position.
Part 4: Other Issues
Parties Obligations to The parties will endeavorto notify each other in the event of the development of
Communicate 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/orthe 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 forwhich 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
28
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'6Ds, '70s and into the data inputs provided by the System to the appraiser for purposes of conducting the
'80s,the solid waste system appraisal.
was operated as part of the
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 j
began the effort to transform adjustment will be made with respect to any future appraisal.
the solid waste system from The ILA will define a clear process by which the value of Cedar Hills to the Division,
a General Fund operation to 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 casts 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 atthe 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 bythe property now in use, and will not charge General Fund rent for assets acquired in
General Fund from the state the future solely from System revenues. Assets owned by other County funds (e.g.,
in 1992 and remains a 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',
System. �
the Division forthe use of,
this asset in 2004.
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. If the 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, priorto 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
29
Amended and Restated Solid Waste fnterlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
Liability SCA Principles as agreed to by Executive Constantine form the basis forth
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:
e Insurance, if commercially available with cities as additional insured
e Any reserves established for environmental liability shall survive for 30 years
after the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill.
• Grants to the extent available
i
6 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 Section 6.1.g is amended to state "The County shall provide facilities and services
Transfer Station Plan pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the5olid 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.
I
i
i
King County Solid Waste Division Page 5 of 5 December 21, 2012
30
m
_ J v o 0
` _ m 0
a v• ++ .� N = � fU6 y pOp N
U ._
N
O �' m
V N Q) U
a X u t0 fl.
OJ
C 2
w O C
U C C.
o v
Vwi"_ N ci f6 H T p N O bA +L-• G
on — no o s m m m
u .L
t
tOi Q U VOi N Y O Q U taa Jj
J. a
Lq
U N O
IL 0 Y M N
� � [o u� -o - m p > -�a m a � ❑ E o m I
>
a
vp� o u° r o u 3
onn m �'
p N
U '^ C
E E vOi .a+ V U C
Y ago E E > m a rGo
s as = � uLL au � 3 o Q
d
v o0
QJ
61 ® m m o
Y ¢ V
N C
o E ❑
Zf _ 7
w - 3 E E i2 a 3 E
a
C Q vp
m
� , � c
31
I
N
O
r N
c-I
N
SST$ I
ry s
E9T$ IN v
U
v
tr4T$ca
I'
N
:!I mi 1,
O p
E Qj
8ET$ a
01
6l � °1
N
8 LbT$ ry
SI U
00
® LET$ N LL
L v413
N ti v
O 9t T$ IN
O g
w0 L� SET$ N N
- I
S
O 4 m 4trT$ y oN a
v) t; U .
Q) N
W
iZT$ .y
0 T
w
b 6
LT'OZT$ .� >
ti
�4 @ IT AZT$
a
0
O O O O O O G O O O
O O O O O O O O O O N
INO X
um
32
00
ci
N O
O N
++ N
-6 N
v v 3
.� u t n. a o
v k rn a a
DO
a) } v
® a r
3 a L C
Qj Y
ON
Q1 V
co
NLn
O N O 00 O E N a
ch 'i of a
CL
ate_+ N O O O Z�l U v >' W .O •C
N \ z v W -�-+ °
m °
n 06 6
QJ a C N N ii tlF yC, L in) C
tn
a -� c ° a
�� a
a O N h a v v N
d v o r N c a E
0 N +n +n a c = a a
4D o O o O `° � N
O OrJ
tiCL
CU d O ++ N al} N a, ¢ "� C O a a
0 oOJ
U oci
a t
cu
av"ii, � m �' v •°' 01 � y ° a O uCi '� °' ���
v v E c
ao 3 0 m
ro t O m Z m p N iE L") `K Z a W W 4 O
N
c u O
b U z Y
33
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
System Map
skyhonsh
Hgughfo x���a .,.
5 wiA v_e® 1'1 `n
...�Itnlc
�r I � IA�1m�r+ FaClof3a
Afe�.e�5� i.4m
c
'
• Renton
1 e�aa
Cedar Hil0.5 =i 1
FegionaR Landfi l
a
I Vashrn „�.
,f` :%ccimn3 k i
1 B L Oscar FalEs 1
i
7� r Cvrmclon L•ni r
Ruh
at 1
Afgna
'u
.J 3
a
k
King County Solid Waste Facilities _ y� Enumclaff
Tran_1er5laCcn t" .4.,;.3 y f ✓v„}
Drct^;Fax
F---I Inrorpm,aWAr 0 t 2 4 b P.
�]❑niw"p.aledArea Miles
Icrg Canty aourdaiy
®UrbanGmwlh2ourday
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
34
This page intentionally left blank.
35
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: January 16, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: February 4, 2013
From: Sean M. Bauer, Water Quality Supervisor
Through: Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director
Subject: AmTest Water System Bacteriological Sampling Agreement
Item - 3
Motion: Move to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Goods
and Services Agreement with AmTest, Inc. for routine bacteriological water
sample collection in an amount not to exceed $23,865.00 subject to final
terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works
Director.
Summary:
Pursuant to WAC 246-290-300 the City routinely collects and analyzes seventy-two
bacteriological water samples per month at predetermined monitoring locations in
the distribution system. Sampling and analysis ensures the drinking water is free of
coliform bacteria to protect public health.
Budget Impact:
There is no Unbudgeted Fiscal Impact as this is an annual cost which is planned for
and the funding ($23,865.00) would come from the 2013 Water Utility operating
budget.
36
This page intentionally left blank.
1
I
37
EXHIBIT A
Scope of work:
AmTest, Inc. will collect and analyze the City of Kent's state mandated routine
collform bacteria samples. Sampling consists of eighteen (18) coliform and free
chlorine residual samples per week, at City designated sampling locations, the first
four (4) Tuesdays of every month, for twelve (12) months. AmTest; Inc. will also
submit all necessary sample result paperwork to the Washington State Department
of Health Office of Drinking Water as required by the City in chapter 246.290.300
WAC, as well as copies to the City of Kent Water Department.
i
I
38
EXHIBIT$
December 19, 2012
To: Sean Bauer
City of Dent
Public Works/Water Section
220 Fourth Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Price Quote for Laboratory Analysis and Sampling
I
Sean
Here are two separate price quotes. One for AmTest to pick up the samples at your
facility and perform the purity analyses, and one for AmTest to perform the sampling and
analyses. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments,
1. AmTest will pick up the samples at your facility and bring them to our laboratory for
analysis at a rate of$14 per sample. Considering 18 samples per Tuesday four times per
month the total for this would be: $12,096 per year (18 samples per week, four times per
month, 12 months per year= 864 samples per year), Any additional samples would be
charged at$14 per sample as well,
2. AmTest will perform all sampling at designated City of Kent sampling stations and/or
city facilities at the same quantity as #1 for an additional$200 per week, All mileage,
gas and hourly wage for our employee would be included in the flat rate of$200,
This works out to an additional $9600 per year for a total of$21,696,
If you have any question or comments please feel free to contact me at 425-885-1664 or
by email at aarony@amtestlab.com
Sincerely,
Aaron W. Young
Lab Manager
I
39
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6500
WASH IN GTO N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: January 30, 2013
To: Chair Elizabeth Albertson and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: February 4, 2013
From: Michael Mactutis, P.E., Environmental Engineering Manager
Through: Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director
Subject: Information Only/Green River Levee Update
Item - 4
No Motion Required/Information Only
Summary:
Kent staff will provide an update on Green River levee issues.
Budget Impact:
None