AgdaPkt 2005-06-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

��- z separate agreements with BFI: an Operating Agreement (for the recycling and transfer station) and a�olid Waste Disposal Agreement (for the landfill). Although the Council approved the original Collection Agreement with BFI in Novemher 1999, a final document was not executed by both parties and we are uncertain as to the exact version that was approved. To resolve this uncertainty, staff recommends that the Council adopt a restated version of the original Collection Agreement that contair.s , amendments approved by the Council subsequent to the Collection AgreemenYs initial presentation to Council. Moreover, there have been modifications to model agreements and amendments prepared by SBWMA counsel that may not always have reflected the agreed upon business terms. These modifications, which are listed below, have been corrected in the amended and restated ayreement. • The commercial ptant recycling program requires a two cubic minimum for collection; • BFI is required to conduct a route audit every ofher year to help assure that customers are being charged the correct amount for their garbage service; and, • BFI is providing two on-call extra coClectio��s for larye items each year rather than the two cityv✓ia`e cleanups that took pla�e b�fore 2000. '' Analysis During negotiations after the Per�ormance Hearing; Bhl stated thai they met the majority of the performance criteria required for automatic thre�-year extension� of the Franchise Collection Services Agreements with the jurisdicYions. They claimed that the economic downturn (an event over which they had no control) made achievement of the higher recycling tonnage goals impossible. Regarding t��e rate competitivenes� standard, they said that certain conditions in the cities wi�t� higher raf�s make collectior� services more expensive. SBWMA member agencies r�ave the abiliiy tn waive BFI's non-performance of any standards, allowing for the automatic tl��ec:-ye�r extension of Yhe Franchise Collection Services Agreement. Member agencies also have the opfion to extend the term of the Collection Agreement beyond this initial extension for a per'iod of one to ��ven years ii increments of at least 12 months. The proposed would yrant the ini�ial thr�;�-y�ar extension and one additional year, th�reby extending the term to Dec�mber 31, 20� 0. This wouJd keep the Collection Agreement on the same termination date �s the Operating Agreement for the Ti�ansfer Station/Recycling Facility. The SBWMA has v�ted un�nimously to recQmrnend this fo�ar- year extension of the Collec�ic�f� Agre�m�r�t to all member agencies. On April 5, 2005, the SBWMA vot�d 11-1 to enfer into a new fifteen-year Solid Wasie Disposal Agreement with gFl for use of Ox Mc�untain Landfill in exchange for a fee decrease of $12.49 per ton off the then cu��rent r�� o� $43.56 (retroactive to January 1, 2005) and a payment of $11.6 million dollars to ;��i/MA over the first three years of the Agreement'. On the same date, the SBWMA (by a 12-0 vote) also granted a four-year extension of the Transfer Station/Recycling Facility Operating Agreement with BFI, which will terminate on December 31, 2010. The Dispc��l and Operating Agreements, the 1 The County of San Mateo voted no because the Disposal Agreement contains language that the County finds to be in conflict with the existing County-BFI agreement for the operation of the Ox Mountain landfill.