HomeMy WebLinkAbout0200.092-
AFril 2, 1992
THE HONORABLE CITi COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
First Supplement to M~mor~!19Um of Understandin.9--_ns:rnart Station
Members of the Council:
~rt in Brief
The City of Sunnyvale has is~ued a Request for proposals (RFP) fer
the design, constructioo l and long-term operation of the Sunn~~ale
Materials Recovery and Tr2.MSfer (SMaRT) Station. The cities of
Mountain View and Palo Alto will deliver municipal solid waste to
the station under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
entered into by all three cities effective September 30, 1991, and
approved b:y-Council on October 7, 1991 (CMR:439.91). The RFF
provides for recycling incentives and tonnage delivery commitments"
and metbodologies to allocate certain costs to each city. The
proposed revisions to the MOU address these issues by supplementing
language in the MOU. Staff is requesting Council approve the
proposed revisions to the MOU.
Background
on October i, 1991, council approved a long-term refuse disposal
agreement with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) of Cali!ornia~ At the
same time, the Council also apprr.~ved an MOU concerning Sunnyvale's
con~tr\.lction anc operation of the SMaRT station with the cities of
Mountain View and Palo Alto. Finally, the Council authorized the
city Manager to approve minor changes in the MOU, as may be needed
to implement the project. The changes proposed in the MOU will
result in additional costs to the city; therefore, staff from the
city Attorney'6 Office recommended that Council approve the
supplement to the MOU~
Discuss_ion
In the development of Sunnyvale's RFP documents and discussions
with potential proposers, a number of issues have arisen that ~ere
neither anticipated nor addressed by the original MOU~ Several of
these issues will need to be added to the MOU. The issues are as
follows:
-1-
CMR:200: 92
L
~,
i
I
· ."
f .,
L Delivery of Minimum Quantities. The RFP guarant.ee!5 the SHal<T
station operator that a mini:rro.m tCl"'.nage of municipal solid
'Waste wi 11 be delivered to the Station each year. These
minilllum tonnages are mathem('n:ically derived from t.he minimum
tonr.age commitment each. city has made to WMI in the Kirby
canyon disposal agreement, adjusted (increased) to account for
the Ddnimum of 15 percent re.cycling that will occur at the
station. While the MOU addresses t~e co~itment of each city
to deliver minimum. quantities of "iil'aste in the context c;.f the
Kirby can~~on Landfill minimll1!; delivery cOlU1l!itltent, it does not
address this issue in the context of the SMaRT Station. The
proposed supplement to the MOt: WOLJld commit each City to
deliver to the SMaRT station the amounts of solid waste
necessary to meet the mini~um ton~age guarantee specified in
the RFP.
2. Allocation of Recyclins...ID~_,"ntive Fees. The RFP provides that
if the station operator exceeds the 15 percent minimum
recycling level, the operator vill receive bonus paynents for
recycling in excess of 15 percent. The proposed supplement
would provide a mechanism tor ~llocating among the cities the
payment of the bonus, based on each city's proportion of th~
total municipal solid iiaste delivered to the St.ation from the
three cities. The amounts paid as recycling incentive fees
~ill result in a reduction of the disposal f~es paid to ~~I,
and will be less than the total fee for disposal including
state and local taxes.
3. Allocation gf Reyenue ShortfAlJ....1I_~Yl'l'lents. The RFP identifies
~Revenue Shortfall Payments·, as the mechanism for
compensating the Station operator in the event the minimU!ll
tonnage is not delivered to the Station. The MOU does n~t
provide a specific mechanism for allocating such payments
among the three cities. The propoeed MOO revision 'Would apply
the same. mechanism to these shortfall paYlLents as the original
MOC applies to the Minimum Quantity Disposal Fee, if the Kirby
canyon minimum tonnage com.~i tIrt€:nt 'Were not :met.
c. Al1ocaJtio.n of cost~W_aste Characterl.zatioIJ ___ nStudies. The RFP
was amended to ~rovide for an initial basel ine 'Wast.e
characteriz;ation study to be conducted short Iv after the
Station opens, to respond to concerns from proposers of
chanqes to the waste stream (primarily the reduction of
recyclable materials). This initial study would be compared
with future studies tc identify whether or-not the waste
stream for the. three cities had changed to the extent that the
15 percent recycling minimum ""as still achieVable. The
proposed supplement to the MOU would apportion costs due to
the baseline study and s~bsequent studies, if any, among the
three cities in the same fashion as the Recycling Incentive
Fees. studies of this type can range from $100-2DO,OOO and
Palo Alto's portion would be appro~imately 20 percent, or $20-
-2-
CMR: 200: 92
;
,
40, COO. Exact amounts -!;l'e u.nk.noWi': until the study has been
placed O\lt for bid by Sunnyvole.
5. Allpeatio'f:! of Disposition Costs.1or Recyclable _~terials. The
RFP crovides tor revenues from the sAle of recyclable
deliveries to be split bet:we.e.n the cities and the station
operator. It also anticipates that fluctuations. in the
markets for recyclable materials may result. in a situat.ion
where recycla:bles vill be entering i!l .no.arket in ... hich their
value is negative (i.e., ~ pay<;nent to the recyclable materials
broker or end-user will be required in order for the ~aterials
to be accepted for recycling)~ Th-a RFP anticip'Zltes this by
recr...:iring the cities and the Station operator to share in
these "dispcsition costs" in the saine proportior.s as they
share in the recyclinq revenues. The proposed supplement to
the MOU describes a method for allocating these disposition
costs among the three cities.
If the disposition costs are: (1) due to rec}'clable materials
delivered by only one city, then that city ~ill be responsible
for the disposition costs; (2) due; to recyclable materials
de1ivered by more than one city~ then the disposition costs
'Will be allocated in prcpo:-tion to each city's contrib'ltiCln of
the materials generating the disposition costs_
6. pefinition Clean~p. This clarification specifies that solid
waste delivered to the Station by employees of one of the
cities 19 1 for purposes of the MOD. placed in the sa.me
category as waste delivered by the franchised or eXClusive
hauler vf that city and is not placed in tlH!! same categol'Y as
waste delivered by mru:wers of the public.
74 Sunnyvale and Mount~in View Commitment to Deliver Residential
Becyclables4 The proposed supplement to the MOU formally
commits both Sunnyvale and Mountain View to deliver their
curbside and multiple-family recyclables to the SMaRT station.
DUe to the longer haul distance~ Palo Alto has always planned
to continue to operate its existing recycling center and has
not committed to deli ver source-separated recyclable materials
to SMaRT4
8. Allocatiol'l of R.~cycling Reve.l1...Y.!!.§.. As noted in item number 5
above, the cities and the station operator ~ill share the
revenue fro~ sale of recyclable materials recovered from the
solid .... aste str-eam. The revenue split originally specified in
the RFP was "85 percent Cities, 15 percent operator," Which
placed the cities in the ~entrepreneurial" position subject to
the larqer portion of potential market risk and reward. After
the first pre-proposal meeting, in which many proposers
expr.ssed a strong prefere~ce that they taxe on the
"entrepreneurial" role and the associated risk and re~arQ.
Sunnyvale amended the RFP to allow proposals under either the
original 85/15 split, a new option of "10 percent cities 90
-J-
CMR:200:92
L
~
i ,
~:-'
f , ,
-,.'
percent operator-split, or both. Tne MOV is silent on the
topic of how the cities ~ill allocate ~~ong themselves their
85 or 10 percant of the recyclir.q revenues. The proposed
supplement states that the cities aqree to allocate the
revenues in proportion to their respective contribution of
recyclahle materials, taki~9 into account quantity, type and
qrade of materials.
'l'he text of the First Supplement to the MOU is attached as
Attachment 14 A revised copy of the complete MOU, with additions
indicated by shading, is attached as Attachment 2. Staff
anticipates that issues will continue to emerge in Slmnyvale's
proceas of ~wardin9 the contract(s) tor this complex project, which
may require additional supplements to the HOU. Staff will continue
to work with the city Attorney's Office to dete~ine whioh
Bupplements can be acted on l:ly the: City Manager, and whi.:h
supplements require council action.
Environmental Impact Assessrr: __ @:1.t
On October 7, 1991. the City Co~ncil adopted the City of San Jose
and City of Su!"myvale·s find.imi6 and statements of overriding
considerations for the Kirby Canyon Landfill and the Sunnyva.le
Transfer Station. with respect to the City of Palo Alto'e
participation in its aqreement with WMI and the MOU between the
three cities. The changes to the MOU under the proposed supplemer.t
to the MOU will result in no additional environmental impacts to
Palo Alto~ Therefore, supplemental or subsequent environmental
review by the. Council is not required. in connection .i tho adoption
of the Supplement.
Recommenaation
Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed Supplem~nt tQ
the MOU~
Respectfully submitted I
MI CI\}o.EL H. MILLER
Deputy Director, Public Works Operations
" ._, ,/; (Jf ;,1
'-tJJv<C(/ .\dok~c---.-
L .
DAVID G. ADAMS
,~-/
"I' G:>o<,,:~ ~nLLlfAM zAliE'R .
Director of public Works CityjManager
-4-
CMR:200:92
. ,
i~
" t:
n
\I
i'
;;.;
~
" ~ :~1
1
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
1
-"
Attachments: First MOG SupplEm~nt Language
Revised MOU Incorporatinq Suppl~ment
Related CMRs! 439.91
CKR,200'92 -5-
•
" "" ,,~"~><~"""-"---:'----.. ~~~--
"
-. ::-, . " .",' '-~
•
-
FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORA."IDVM OF VNDER.ST ANDING
A.1\10NG THE CITIES OF
MOUl'.'TAIN VIEW, PALO ALTO AI"D $lR\'N'fV ALE
RFLATING TO THE CONSnWCTION A,'l/D OPERATION Q}' A
MATERIALS RECOVERY Ac"iD TRA.."'ISFER STATION AND
THE LONG TER.1\1 DISPOSAL OF M1J'NIClPAL SOLID WASTE
AT KIRBY CAJ."iYON
nIB :rntS'l' StTPPLEXZli'T TO .KElIOR.AllDCK OF UNOERS'TA.NDIKG < Ii'MOU")
is made as of the __ dalo~ or March, 1992, :by and among t.he City
of Mountain View, th~ city of Palo Alto, and the City of
Sunnyvale (collectively "Cities~).
A." The Cities entered into a Memorandum of Understandinq
as ot Sep~~mber 30 r 1991, in order to facilitate continued
cooperation and coordinated action ~onq them in relation to a
Materials Recovery and Transfer stati~n to be located in
Surmyvale and jointly used by all cities ("SMaRT Station-) and in
relation to Waste Management of California i Inc. ("Waste
Manaqement W), with which each of the Cities had enterea into
long-ter3 contracts for aisposal of Municipal Solid Waste at the
Kirby Canyon SanitarI Landfill.
B. As contemplated by the MOU, Sunnyvale negotiated wit~
Was~e Management regarding the terms and conditions under ~hich
Waste Manaqement WOuld construct and thereafter operate the SMaRT
Station. At the end of Oecember 1991, all of th~ Cities
conclu~eQ that it would be in their b~~t interest for Sunnyvale
to issue a Request tor Proposals (-REP") to qualified firms for
construction and operation ot the SMaRT $tation, a course of
action also contemplatad by the MOU.
C. An RFP ..,as deve~oped by sunnyvale with the advice: and
assistance of the other cities and issued in January 1992. The
RFP and addenda thereto reflect the consensus of all cities as to
matters of both format and content. including the SMaRT Station's
capacity of 1,500 Tons per day. Proposals in response to the RFP
are due to be received on April 2, 1992~
O. In order to allov for timely action on the Proposals
received, the Cities now desire to memorialize agreement on
ce.rtilin aspects of the SMa.~T station oper~_tion.
43357.1
The Cities agree as tollows!
1. Section IV. 1 of the MOU is amended by adding
thereto the follolrdng sentence:
"In addition, each of the Cities agrees to
deliver Mur.icip"l Solid Waste to the SMaRT
Station in an amount not less than 88 percent
of each City's respective annual Allocation
Quantity set forth in Exhibit A to the
Cities' contracts ~ith Waste Management as it
exists as ot the date of this Supplement, a
copy of ~hich Exhibit is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.~
2~ Section IV.2 of the MOU is amended by adding a ne~
Subsectio~ E, to read as follows:
WE. The city's share of the Recycling
Incentive Fee provided for in Sectior, <5.03 of
the Agreement ~~tween Sunnyvale and the
operator of the S~aRT Station if and when
such Fee is earned. Each City's share of the
Recycling Incentive Fee will be determined by
multiplyinq the Recycling Incentive Fee
~arned by a fraction, the numerator of ~hich
is the am·:)unt. in Tons, of Municipal Solid
Waste delivered by each city to the SMaRT
Station during the period the Recycling
Incentivo! Fee 'Was earned and the der.~lDinator
of which is the total amount of Municipal
Solid Waste delivered, to the SMaRT Station by
all three Cities during that period.-
3. Se~tion IV.2 of the MOU is amended by adding a new
Subsection F, to read as follows~
4335L 1
-F. The City'S share of pa~~ents due
the operator of the SMaRT Station to offset
an annual Revenue Shortfall due to delivery
of Municipal Solid Waste in quantities less
than the minimum quantities contemplated in
the Agreement bet .. eerl Sunnyvale and the
operator of the SMaRT Station and set out in
Exhibit M to the Agreement betwaen Sunnyvale
and the operator of the SM~RT Station
contained in the RFP.
Each City's share of amounts due
the operator to offset a Revenue Shortfall
'Will be based on the amotint, if' any, which
-2-31 11/9~
~ i
I
f
-
'-.'.
,-
each ~_eyls delivety of Municipal Solid Waste
to the SMa~T Station duri~g the year for
~hich an offset pay=ent is due f21l belo~ aa
percent of that City's annual Allocation
Quantity and will ba calculated following the
same procr:-:Iure specified in SGction IV(2) (C)
of this MC'U to allocate responsibili't.y for
the Minirnu~ Quantity Disposal F~e.N
.. ~ Section IV. 2 of the !':IOU is a::-:e:'1ded b:t adding a ne",,'
Subsection G, to read ~s fol10',.'s:
"C. Each city's share of the cost of
the initial and subsequent periodic waste
char~cterization studies conducted by
SU:1nyvale or jointly by S1;:lJ"lyvale and the
ooer~tor of the SMaR~ Station, as
conte~plated by Se;.;ticn 4.05 of the J..greement
bet· ... een Sunnyvale ar.d the op""rator of the
SXaRT Station contained in the RFP. Each
Ci ty's share ""ill be determined by
multiplying the ccst of the study by a
fractian, the numerator of whi~h is the
amount., in Tc,ns, of Municipal Solid .... Iaste, in
Tons~ delivared to t:.he Sj~aRT StCition by each
City during the calendar year preceding the
study's completion a~d Lhe denominator of
which is the total a~ount of Municipal Solid
Waste delivered to the SMaRT station in that
calendar year by all three Cities.w
S. Section IV. 2 of the MQU is a-:tended by addi!"lg a ne ....
Subsection H, to read as follows:
'3357.1
'1.::
"H. Each cityl s share of the costs of
dispcsition of Recyclable Materials, if any
become payable under the .~gree:::;:ent between
Sunnyvale and the operat-:lr c,f the SNaRT
statlon. In calculating each city'~ share of
these costs, the follo~ing pri~ciples will
apply!
A. If the Recyclable Materials
for ..... hich a disposition cost is in.curred ... ·ere
delivered by only one city, then th~t city
will be responsible for the cost of
disposition.
B. If the Recyclable ~aterials
for which a disposition cost is incu~red were
delivered by more than one city, then the
-3-3,11 ki92
cost O~iSPosition ~ill be alloC~d in
proportion to each city's contribution t.o
such Recyc13ble Materials. Each city's
contribution will be the sum of its 5hare of
each of three i.r.pw.t. st.rearns, i.e.,
(1) Recyclable Materials delivered to the
buyb~ck/dropoff center, (2) source-Separated
Recyclabl~ Hat~rials delivered by a city or
its Designated Hauler, and (J) Recysl3~le
Materials recovered frc~ Municioal Solid
waste. Each city's share of th~ input
stream, in turn, will be det~r~ine~ by th~
amount of R6cyclable Materials, if any, which
i~ delivers tD each input strea~. With
respect to the buyback/d~opoff center stream,
each city's share will be bzs~d on the amoun~
of Recyclable Mat~rials delivered by
residen~s of each city. ~ith respect to the
Source-separated Recyclabie Materials strea~,
each city's shar~ will be based on the amount
of Source-Separated Recyclable Materials
delivered by it or by its Desig~ated Ha~ler.
Wit~ respect to the Municipal Solid Waste
stream, each city's share ~ill be based on
the aThount of Municipal Solid Waste delivered
by each city to the "i'ransfer Stc~ion.
ThE'>_ 1I.gre-e!!1ent bet· .. 'ee~ sunnyvale and the
Transfer St3tion operator ~ill, to the exte~t
practicable l :-equire the SMaRT stat.lon
operator to ccllect and record data, by city
of origin, in sufficient d'~tail for the
calculations contemplated in this sectiC'n to
be carried out."
6. Section !V.l0 of the MOU is amended by adding the
following sentence:
Qln addition: IMunicipal S~lid Wast~
delivered by a city' means, f~r' purposes cf
this MOU, Municipal 3elid Waste delivered by
City employees or by its Gesig~ated Hauler.~
7. A new Section IV.12 is added to the MOU, to read as
follows:
43l0;1.1
"12. The Citi~s of sunnyvale and
Mounta in vie .... ' agree to del i ver, or cause to
be delivered, to tte 5~aRT station all
Recyclable Materials collected from
residences by City ereployees, ~he City's
!!t
--,,:
,'; '-."
·~~'tlc·
-'-·'·10'-" ;:~,
--
~'
I
I
I
I
r;
8.
fol1o .. ·s:
....
--"
Desig'.4"ted Hauler, or other ?'=!rso~::;: operating
under contract with the City."
A new section IV.IJ is ~dded to the MOU, to cgad as
all. The Ci~ies ag~e~ that revenues frc~
the sale of p.ecjclable !.I;aterials delivered to
the SMaFT Station will b2 allocated a~ong
the·,n in p~CJportion to their J:"espective
contribution of such raterials, taking into
account. quantity. t.ipe a~d grade 'Of
materials, including degr~e of separation.
The parties will develop the details and
mechanisms necessaJ:"Y to i~ple~ent this
allocaticI"'. prier to the cpeni ... ,~ of the S~aRT
S"CC!tior. :for o~erati·c.'"l. j'
n: WITNESS WHEREOF, the (i.t.iEs r.ave ex~c\Jt.;d this 3:.:pplement
to Memorandum cf Understanding as of the ·jay a.r;d yea r first at;ove
.... ritten.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
By:
Title:----------=_-====----
Date:
Attest: _____ _
C-,G·t~y~c-l~e~r~k;-------
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ~LTC
By:
Tit'1-=e7:=== ___ -----Date:
Attest:
cfty Clerk
Approved as to form~
-------c"",-.t"'y At torney--------
433S;' .1 -5-
........ _-, .. ,,' ,-
:~' -.i -
.......
"---
i
, <
• '.<,. pro< 1"'<""''----:'''''' .. "... ~.,' ... "~'-. >_. ~.--"., -.. -'.-. ~~""",,
! . \ ~. , ~
! EXHlBIT A
~
LIST OF A:! QrATION OUAr{I1Jj ES IN TO~S
SUNN"rVALE. Mour,n.A.tN \ll="" PALO ALTO TOTA ...
YEAB
'992 0 0 ~ ~
1993 .. 82.1'27 44,657 29.4dO , 56,263 ,-'59,0713 75,835 59,168 .294,129
199'3 153,794 76,455 5.9,472 2::;9.7 3'
:9% , SO.589 n,3S~ 57,7':'2 235,712
i997 147.249 78.309 55,971 281,529
1998 143.9-45 79.249 54,1:9 2-:'7,253
1999 140,379 53,488 52,304 245,171
2000 136,848 54,112 50,,408 241,368
WO, 135,51 J 54,480 5S,9~2 2~O,905
2002 13M35 54.S5'J 51 ,42~ 2':'2,707
2003 137,365 55,2.24 51.935 ,24-4,S24-
200.. 138,3{)1 55.600 52,455 2J.5,355
2()C5 139,243 55,9~O 5297.9 .24S,202
2006 140,191 55,351 53,S,:J9 250.061
2007 14',146 56,744 54.044 251,934
2008 '42,107 57.130 5-4,585 253,822
l'OO9 143,075 57,518 55.130 2.:.5,723
20'0 144.049 57.909 55.662 2~",640
2()11 14S,Q30 58,303 55,23; 259,572
2012 '14/,5,0113 58,700 55.801 251,519
2013 147,013 59,099 57,369 263,481
20" 148.014 5.9,501 57,94-3 265.458
20'5 149,C22 59,905 58,522 257,44';;
2015 1S~,037 60.3t2 5S,107 269,456
2017 151,059 60,723 59.598 271,480
2015 , 52,087 61.136 60.295 ~73.518
20'9 153,123 61,551 60.898 27:5.572
2020 154,166 e1.970 61.507 277,643
:!O21 116,412 46,793 -4£ ,592 2';)9.797
TOTAL 4.123,310 1,749,333 1.585,326 7,';58,970
• Assumes deflveries begin July 1, 1993
-Assumes derNerjes end September 30,2021.
-
-".:~~<: .'$, I;:~~~~",:t-
Ii;
.,.--.,,,,,;-.
-
",01ORN'\'DUJ\1 OF li"l'<1)ERS01)TI'iG
AMO:>iG THE CITIES OF
MOUJI,'TAIN VIEW, PALO ALTO Al\1) SUJI,'NYVALE
RELAT£'IG TO TITE CO~STRl1CTIO~ A_"'D OPERH1O:-'; OF A
MATERL.QS RECOVERY ."'-"1) TR"''''SFER STATIO~ ;\.11,1)
TIlE LONG TERM DISPOSAL OF ~fLj',1ClPAL SOLID WASTE
AT KIRBY CANYOt\
(RESTATED TO Il\'CORPORHE :\LillCH 1992 SUPPLEMENT)
THIS HEMORANDUM OF Ul'I"DERST)...'"'iDING (I!MOr.;") is !i1a::ie as of t-ne
30th day 0: September~ 1991, by and ar:tong the City cf Mountain
vie .... , the City of Pale. )'.lto, a.-:.d tl:'.'=. Cit)' of S''';';'1r,y·.'31e
(collectively "Cities"].
The Cities agree as follc' ... s:
1. ~he cities, acti~g collectively and cOQperatively~
have negotiated con'tract-.lal c:J::n:;;i t::lents fro;:" ~;aste Manage::;ent 0:
Califcr.nia, Inc. (l'Waste ~anage!':'lent") fo'!:' solid ..... aste cispo:!'al
capacity at the Kirty Car,yon ~.3nitary Lar,dfill in S3.tl Jose. The
a.mount of capaciti s~cl..:red is SUffic:ent to a.cco::':lraociat.e the
Cities' individual requlreme:"1ts for 2. L=-eri·::.d cf ar:lprox:~ately 30
years.
2. The terrrs and conditions of this co~~it~ent of
clisposal capacity are set fc'rth in three separate, but
interrelated, contracts between each of the Cities and Waste
Management. Tne Cities have executed these contracts prior to ur
concurrently vith their execution of this MOU.
3. It is a condition p~ecede~t to the effectiveness
of the contract bet'ween Sun!",r.a1e arH:l io.'aste .V:anage'!'11ent that all
three Cities r 0-,". or befcre '::'ct·:;t,'2'r 15, 1391, .have enterej i::-,to a
MO!] ur::der which Mountain ilie .... and Palo .:'.lto cc~,'7lit to deliver
Municipal Solid 't"'dste g:enerated ... ithin their geographic.:
boundaries to a Materials Recovery and TrarJsfer Station (nS!-!aRT
Station" J to be construct.ed 01'1 property owned by sur.nyvale and to
pay Sunn~tvale a fee for the 'USE! of the SMaRT Station.
4. In order to satisfy the condition precedent just
described r and to facilitate continu~d cooperation and
coordinated action in relation to the SMaRT Station alid Waste
Ma.nage~entl the cities now de~ire to enter into this MO~.
,.,;;",
""<~,J:~~ ~
--"<~~" ,:~~#~,~~:
-",,-.....
~
.Il. Cone., ,iJ:;!ll ,t9~ __ ~_f~ti~',~-±!.,e_-ss 0:( Mt.. ..
This MOU ~ill become effective it and ~he~ the
three ccntracts bet.';o,'een the Ci ,:i';'5 and "'iaste Manager::cn"t. are
signed and themselves become effective according to their t~r~s.
Ill. Coope.;-ative Provisi:::>,~;s 1I.pplicabt~,j,Q Phase one le,~f2..l:.!
tl-~e SMaET statiCl,<=!. __ ~~ __ ~~atior..}
1. Sunny~31e is req~ired. under i"t.s contract ~ith
Waste Management j to negotiate ',.'itt. \-"este Management for 75 days
(i.e., un-:il Decer:t~.er :30, 1991} tr-.e to;;.r>':$ une ... ,!," , .. hich Waste
~anagement ~ould construct and, t~erea!ter. operate the SMaRT
Sta.tion~ During this tii':',e, SUl"',nY'lale ':lay prepare a Req\!est for
Proposals (~RfP") or Invitation for Bids (~!F5") soliciting other
...... aste >:',anageme!'l':. fir':C:s too-offe'!" to cor.S1:.T'.Jct aJ"',d operate. the
SH~RT Station, but may ~ct releasa it until December Ja, 1991,
and tnen only if Su;-:ny\,'ale ar.a 1,';:OSo'te Managem'E:nt. have not re3ch-e:d
a mutually satisfactory ag~ee~e~t.
2~ Sunnjvale -",'ill keep ~~':l~nt2:in Vie'..: aMP. ?alo Alto
in!orrned en a ~egular ~2:sis of the p~ogress of the negotiations
'With 'Naste Mal'1ag-ement. Each City m.J.i' , but need not~ send a
representati V~ to the negotiat ing meetings ',oi th Waste Managemen.t.
The Cities will end~avor to reach a consensus on whether
Sunnyvale should enter into a contract .... 'ith v.,laste Manzge:;;ent. on
the terms developed through the negutiating precess or.
alternatively, issue an RFP/!F3. All Cities recognize, hewever~
that as. the :sole cc'ntracting party, Sunnyval.:;: !;'just, be solely
responsible far deciding whetbsr to enter into a negotiated
contract or solicit proposals thre~gh the RFP/lfS precess.
Notwithstanding this recognition, ho~ever, if ~ny City is not
fully satisfie,d looIith tr.e decision .... hich S\lnny~~-ale st.aff intend to
recommend to the Sunnyvale City Cou.ncil, the -City Mar.agers of all
three. Cities -..:il1 meet to consider t.he issues and alte'tnati ..... es~
No staff report will be for'loo'arded to the Sunr,yvale City Council
until this meeting has peen held, or a;J. acequ,':!.t.e oppot't.unity for
it to he held has been p~ovided.
J. All tr.ree Cil:ies .... ill, ccncu.rrently ',o,!'it.h the
negotiations • ... ith waste M~r;age:::.ent; coll.aborate in pre1=arir.g the
RFP/IFB. The Cities 'Will ende;:tvor t,::) :r:eech a consensus on the
format and content of the REP/IrS. All Cities recognize~
however, that as the puolic entity issuing the RFP/lrE. Sunnyv2iile
must be.solely r~spor.siole for ultimate decisions on its format
and content. Not~ithstanding this recognition, ho~ever, if any
City is :not fully satisfied ""ith elements in the RFP/IFB -which
Sunnyvale staff intends to recommend to the su:myvale City
Council, the city Managers of all three Cities will meet to
consider the issues ~nd alternatives. sunnyvale ~ill not issue
the RfP/IF8 u~til this meeting has been held, or an adequate
opportu.nity fa"C it. to be held has beE'l'"'. provided.
-2-J II '9l
I , ,
-
"'. 'JthEr the SMaRT Station i~cnstructed by Waste
Manage~ent pursuant co a neg~tiated contract Qr bi a company
s~lected through the RF?/IFB process .. Sunnyval~ will require that
the Transf~r Station to be constructed is consistent in all
~aterial respects (e.g., loc~tion .. size, thrcughp~: capacity,
recycling cap~bilities) with that describ~d i~ the Final
Environl':',ental I~pact Repo:--t Or'1 the. S~'iaRT Station certi fi€'.d by the
Sunnyvale Cit'j council on September '::.:1, 1990, unless thi:?; cna:"'Lges
are agreed to by b~th Mountain View and Palo Alto.
5. After the contract for construction and operation
1s awarded, S~nnyvale ~ill b~ solely responsible for
administering the const-ruction contract. sunnyvale ~ill keep
Mountain View and Palo Alta intorme1 1 en a regular basis, of tha
progress of cor.stn..:ctic!".. S~nnyvale -"'ill prc~ptly alert the
Cities to any difficul~ie5 encountered in construction. In
particular, s:.H"lTlyvale · ..... i 11 il..~Edi ately alert. t:'e Cities to any
possibility tha~ the constructic·n ' ... 'ill no': be c,~,.,pleted
sufficiently 50 as to aIlo',,-Municip,al Solid '~astE-to be
transferred to 'Transf~c Vehicles fc'r delive.ry to Kirby canyon by
July 1, 1993, as ccnte~plated in t~e CitiES' contracts ~ith Waste
Management.
IV. Cooperative provis_io:ls lIop).ic:ahle ___ ~2......~_l;l.ase l'wo (;totter
the SMaR'l" St~_t~e;in~er~ __ i_2.ill.
1. E~ch of the three Cities agrees to deliver
Municipal Solid Waste to the SMaRT Station in sufficient cp .. ,_ar.'t.ity
so that is perc'eilt of each City's respect-i",re arlT1ual Allo~ation
Quantity. set forth in Exhibit A t,:; the cities' contracts .... ith
Waste Manage~e~t, is oelivered to Kirby Canyon. In addition 4
each of· the Cities agrees te· deliver MI..:.r::icipal Solid ","aste to the
SMaRT, St'ation in an amount not less than 68 percent of each
City's ,respective annual ~.11ocation Quantity set forth in Exhibit
A·'to' _~hE! Cities' contracts with Waste Ma.r.age;":l.ent as it exIsts as
of the-date of this Supple::Jent, a copy of \rr,'hich Exhibit is
attached hereto and inccrporated h~rein by this reference~
2.. Each of tr,e three Cities agrees t~ PdY to
Sunnyvale cr to the operator of tr.e S~aRT St~tion~ as SUr'::1yvale
directs, the follo'''''ing:
]I.. Tipping Fee~ to be established under the
ccnt:cact to be entared into Det· ... e-=-n S'Jnnyvale and the company
selected to construct and cperate the SMaRT Station~
B. Disposal Fee (plUS applicable taxes and
fees), due to Waste M~nage~ent under each City's contract with
Waste Management. Th~ Disposal Fee due fro~ each City ~ill be
d~termined by m~ltiplying the total a~ount d~e as shown en
!59!2.4 -3-
c--,
periodic iMVC~ ~s from Waste ~~nage~ent for Municipal Solid Waste
delivered to Kirby canyon by a fraction, the numel:ator of .... hic!1
is the amount l in Tons, of Municipal Solid Wa~te delivered by
e2lich City to the ·transfer Station I and the denominator of ·,.,.hich
is the total amount of Municipal Solid Waste delivered to the
Transfer St~tion.
In ~aking t~e foregoing calculatiDn l the
following rules will apply:
el) only Municipal Solid Waste !O~ which a
Tipping Fee is charged (i.e., ~3ste ma~erial in vehicles th~t are
directed to the tippL'lg' floor of the 7ransfer Sta-:.ion) ,,<'ill be
included in the calculation; Recyclable r-!at.erials .... h.lch arp.:
separately d~livered for processi~g and recovery, and which do
not need to be routed through the tipping t loor, '/I,'i 11 be
excluded.
(2] If tte Tra~sfer station accepts publicly
hauled waste (Le~, ,,'aste ·,,'hieh is delive:;;ea by private
individuals and not by the Cities' Desig~ated P.aulers} I and the
Cities receive a portion of the Tippi~q Fee revenue$ paid by such
individuals, then Munici=al Sclid Waste so delivered ~lll be
~tcributed to the Ci~y f~cm Which it or the drIver originates and
will be included in tbe abov~ calculation.
(3) If the Transfe~ Station ac~epts publicly
hauled waste (i.e., .... aste "'i"'.i,::.h is delivered by pri .... ate
individuals and !:'",':Jt b I the Cities' De5igna~ed Haulers), but the
Citi.es do not -re.ceive any port.i.:m of the Tippit'.g Fee re.venues.
paid by such individuals, t.he. Municipa.l solid l,.;as':.e so delive.r-ed
"tI'ill not be. attributed to tr-.e cit.v fro~ -..;hi~h it or ttle drive.r
oriqinates and will not be included in the above calculation.
'The same formula '4Ii 11 be ~lsed "to a llocat-e credit:. for recycling
conduct~d at the Transfer St.21t.ion which involves MuniCipal Solid
Waste delivered to the tipping floor.
As of A'ygust 19S,l, the Disposal fee is S21.9'9 pl'L:.s $5.53 in
applicable taxes ano fees.
c. The City's shar€ of tbe Mi~imu~ Quantity
Disposal Fee, if in any year t'r:.e total :Municipal Solid ~aste
delivered to Xir~y canyon is less ~han the total of the three
Cities' Allocation Quantity for that year.
If the Minimum Quantity Di$posal f~e beco~es
paya~le, it will be allocated among tne three Cities as follows:
• if only one ci~y failed ~o deliver an amount
of Municipal Solid Wast2 to the SMaRT Station equal to 75 percent
-........... _"'------'----
-
. I ,
" ~ ,
i
i • I
:. -.,{,-
·-,~~~m ,
-
."
< --""---'~
""" .... -. of' its annual Al'?!r:;at.lon Quantlty -:llVlded ~--,·!l'Je rr.~nus tt:e SMaRT
Station recycling percentage (a single percentage to be agreed
upon trom time to tim~), then that City is solely rasponsible tor
the Minimum Quantity Disposal Fee provision bec~ming operative
and it shall pay the Disposal fee d~e fo~ the difference between
the Minimum Quancity ~nd the Gu~ntity of Municipal Solid Wa~te
actually delivered;
• if two Cities fail to daliver an a~ount of
Municipal Solid ~aste to the S~aRT Station equal to 75 pe~cent of
their respective anr:ual Allocation Q'-l3ntities divid~d by one
~inus the 5M~RT Station rec~cling perc~ntage. then e~ctl of those
tlJO Cities} share of the Disposal Fee d-.;e fe,!" the dif!er€::1ce
"between the Minirr.u!':1 Quantity anc. the qu.al"'.tity of Municipal solid
Waste act'-lalll' delivere5 -.. 'ill be deter:::ined by a fra.::-tic!"1, ths
nu.merator of .... hic:h is the -amol..mt, in Tor.s, by ... 'hich e.ac!'l. city
fell short of delivering 75 percer:t. Q!' its Allc.cati~n Quantity,
and the denominater of which is the su~, in Tons, of those two
arr.ounts:
• if all th~ee Cities fail to delive~ an amo~nt
of Municipal Solid Waste ~o the S~aPT S~ation eqcal to 75 percent
of their-respective ann'..Jal .~llocaticn Qu=:ntities divided by one
minus the SMaRT Station recycling pe~centage, then each City's
share of ~he Disposal Fee due fer the differe~ce bet~een the
Minimum Quantity and the quantity of Municipal Solid Was~e
actually delivered ""ill be deternined by a frac~ion~ the
numerator ;;f 'Which is the arnou:tt., in Tor.s. by -;".rt-.icf'. each City
fell shor~ of delivering 75 percent of its Allocation Quantity,
and the deno~inator of .... 'hich is the amount, in TOI'"'Si by w'hier.
total deliveries to Kirby canyon fell short of t~e total Minirnup
Quantity for all three Cities.
It is the i~tent. of all cities to coordinate
efforts to meet Minimum Quar,tity requirem::::."ts and, thus. avoid
ad~itional Disposal Fees. Ho~ever, no City has any obligation
under this }lOIJ to deliver more Mt:.nicip,3.1 solid Waste to the SMaRT
Station than it is required to do by its concract vith Waste
Management in order to offset the Mini~urn Quant.ity obligations of
any other City or Cities which do not deliver t~e ~inim~m a~ount
of Municipal Solid Waste required to be deliv~ced under their
contra~t{s) -with {.o;'aste Man2.g8r:-:er,t,
D. The Cities' share of Excess Quantity Disposal
Fee, if in any year the total M~nicipdl solid Waste d~livered to
Kirby Canyon exceeds 110 p~rcent of t.he total of the three
Cities' Allocation Quantity for that year and one or more of the
Cities has/have assigned some or all of their Allocation Quantity
to a municipality other than one of the three Cities.
-5-J I 1"1:1
, ,
If an Excess Q~antity ~isposal F~e be~omes
payable, it viII be allocated amorlg the three Cities as tollQ~s:
• if only c~e city has assigned some or all ~f
i~s Al1oc~ticn Quantity t? a cunicipality other than o~e of the
three Cities, th~n that Cit;,' will be solely responsible for the
Excess Quanti~y Disposal Fee beccrning cperativ2 and it shall pay
the Exc~ss Quantity Disposal Fee d~e for the difference between
the total a~n~~l Allocation Quantity and the actual g~a~tity of
Municipal Soli,j ",,'aste d-=livEred fro;:, t!l-e SMaRT Station to Kirb J"
Canyon;
• if more than cne City has assigned some or.
all of its Allocation Quantity to a ~u~icipality o~her than one
or the three Cities, then its s~are ~ill b~ deter~ined by the
fraction · .... hich the sum cf MLl~icit:al SC'lid Io<.'aste delivered to the
SMaRT St.a~ ion by it and by } ts ass19:"lee co::ars to all !1unicipal
Solid Waste delivered to t~e Tr~nsfer S~ation by all Cities Which
have also assig:led their Al1':)c3ti;.I": Q~;:J·'~.ity and by tr-.eir
assi9 nees .
E. The Citj's shar'a of the F.e:.::ycling Incentive
Fee p'rovided for in Section 6.03 of the Agree:r.ent. b'et;.,'een
Sunnyvale and the operator 0': the SHaRT Station if and 'When such
Fee is earned. Each city's share of the Re':;ycling Incentive Fee
'Will be deterrnins-d by r.:ultipl:J'ing tr.e Recycling Ince."'l.tive Fee
earned by a fraction, the nunerator of which is the amount, in
To~~. of Municipal Solid Waste delive~e:1 by each City to the
SMaRT station during the t:ericd the Recycling Incent:iv2 Fee ... as
earned and the denominator of ~hich is the total amount oL
Municipal Solid: Waste delivered to the SMartT Station by all three
Cities during that period.
F~ The City's sI' .. are of payments dlJ~ the o'Ceratar
of-,'the SMaRT Station to offset an annual Revenue Shortfall· due to
delivery of Municipal Solid r,laste in quantities less than the,
minimum quantities contemplated in t~e Agree::llent betwee!'t
Sunnyvale and the operator of the S11aRT Station and set OLl1: in
£xhibit M to the " .. greement bet;.;een 5unr.yvale and the <:lper'2ltor of
the SMaRT Station contained ir. t!".e ~FP.
Each Cityrs s~are of a~ounts due ~he operator
to,-offset a Revenue Shortfall 'I/O'ill ::'e based on the amou!1t, if
any" ~hich each City's delivery of Municipal Solid Waste to the
SMaRT station during the year for whic~ an offset payment is Que
fell b~lo~ 88 percent-of that City's aunual Allocation Quantity
and,will be cal~ulated follo~ing the sa~e proc2cure specified in
section IV(2) (C) of this MOU to allocate responsibjlity for the
Mini~~ Quantity Disposal FEe.
O. Each City's share of the cost of t~e initial
and sub5~que.r,t periodic · ... aste C,~2.:!:'2.cterization stud ies conducted:
by Sllnn~t ... ale or jointly by Sunr.yvale and t:he operator-of the
-6-
______ ~-.-.;'--.. ___ ._r_'_<O __ \.-__
".L
-
"."' ~:~~;.
~e::--. ,-.
i
I
l
~:;'
,{"'
-, ;'~-,-"
."~.~.-.
·v
}i:'<
-';;,\:;'~,-
-
1"'\ r'\
SMaRt station, a'lr contemplated by Section -4':--t 6 of tr,e .a'3'reemeTl.t
between SUr',nyvale and the operat.cr of the-SMaRr Station ccntained
in,the RF:::' .. Each cit:,."s share ',.(i11 be dete~ined by tloltiplying
the cost of the study by a traction, the n~merator af ~hich is
the amount, in Tons, of Municipal Sclid Waste, in Tons J delivered
to the SMaRT Station by each Cit~ during the calendar year
precedirlq tha study's cOlJ~pletitXl ar,a the denominator of "'hich is
the toti:lll amount of Municipal Solid Waste deli ver-ed to tl:!.e SMaRT
Station in that calendar year by all three Cities.
H. Each city's share of the costs of disposition
o'f" R'ec,}'clable M~terial:;, if any beccme paya.l:le under the
Agreement between Sunnyvale and th!! operator of t.he SMaRT
station. In calculating each city's ShaI"e of these cost.s, 'the:
follo".tirJg principles ;.rill apply:
d' ispcs it i on cost is
then that city ~ill
A. If the Recyclable ]Itat.erials for · ... hie!"' a
incurred '.;ere deliVered. by only one city,
be responsible fer t~e cost cf dispc'sition.
B. If the Recyclal:le ?-~ateria!s for .... ,lhic~~ a
disposition CO:it is incurred ',.'ere deliVered by more, than one
city, then the cost of disposition '*i11 be allocated in
proportion to each city's contribution to S\l<::h Recyclable
Materials. Eacr~ ci.ty·s ccntribution will be the sum of its share
of each of three input streans; i.e., (1) Recyclable ~'aterials
delivered to the buyback/dr-opoff center, {2) Source-separa't.ec.
Recyclable Materials deliverEd by a city cr its De5ignate~
Hauler, and, (3). Recyclable Materials recovered from Municipal
Solid waste. Each city1s share of t.he l."'l.put strea~. in turn,
will:, be determined by the amount of Recyclable Materials l if any,
'\f,;hich it deliVers to each input stream. Wi th respect to "Che
buybackiQrc~off center stream, each city's share will be based on
the_ aT.lount of Recycl~ble Materials delivered by re.sidents of each
city_, With respect to the Source-sepalated Recyclable ~aterials
stream, each city's share will be based on the ar.cunt of Scurce
Separated Recyclable Materials delivered by it or by its
Designated Hauler. With respect to t;,s-?-lunicit:,al Solid j'iaste
stream, each city's share: , .. ill :t,e b.3sed on t.h-z a.~·,ount of
Municipal. So~id ~raste delivered by each city to ·the Tra7".sfer
station~
The Agreement bet~een Su~nyvale a~d the
Transfer Station o?e~ato~ will. to the ~xtent practicable,
zequire the SMaRT Stat:ion ope.rator to collect and record aata, by
city of origin, in SUfficient detail for the calculations
conte~plated in this sect ic,n to be carried OU";.
J. Palo Alto and Mountain View will pay to Sunnyvale,
or to the operator of the SM~RT St3tio~ as Su~niyale directs, a
Ho.::;:t Fee fer use of the S;"!aRT 5ta~icn. .~.t. the cc-::rrnencerne:1t of
this MOU, the Host Fee ~il1 be 52.28 per Ton of M~nicipal Solid
Waste delivered to the SMaRT Station. Tne Host Fee ~ill be
159.!!2.4 -7-l I I ~2
•
"
!
,.,~
,
~
'-,
adj\,;.sted as ot.,_,...,lly 1., 19'92 and a .... nually ...... erea!"ter tD reflect
Changes in tha San Francisc%akland/San Jo~e Metropolitan Area:
C'onSl.l.."'ner Price Index (All l'rban Cor,su::lers; 1982-S4:1r')O) compiled
and published by the u.s. DepartP€nt of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The Index lev~l as of May 1991 (136.2) shall be the
8ese Index. The Hos: Fee shall be adj~sted on July 1. 1992, for
example, by multiplying $2.:2 8 by or.e plus t!ie percentage change
from the Sase Index to the Index lev~l as of May 1992.
4. '£ach City · • ..-ill co\':',p1'l ..... ith its c'blig~tior;s under
section 2.04 of its contr~ct ~ith Waste Man2geme~t and will
require its Designated H.aulers to do so. Each City \o/il1 corr.ply
and .,i11 require its e'esignated Haulers to ccmply with the
Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program ado?t~d by the operato~ of th~
SMaRT Static.'r:~
5. E~ch City ~ill pay a~~~nts due pcc~ptly ~nd ~ithi~
the ti~e periods sp~cifie~ fo= pa~~ent In SEction 4.04 of its
contract with Waste ~anagement. Palo Alto and Mountain View will
pay arnounts due Sunnyv<:ile in sufficient tine to a.l.low Sunnyvale
to pay Waste Management within ~he time period specIfied for
paYlt',ent in SunnjVale's ccntract .. ith 'Y1aste. 1-:anage:nej1t.
6. The Cities will consult ',,;ith each othet" and use
their best effarts to establish consistent, coordinat.ed
positions, policies and actions ir. relation to Waste Manage~ent
including. but not limited to, issues arising under the following
provisions of the cities' ccntr.:;cts ·,.,i th Waste Mar.age!!'1ent!
• Section 1.0) (Extension of TErm)
• s~ction 4.0J (Effect of Future R~gulations)
~ Section 4.0( (Billing and payment Proc~durel
• Section 5.02.A (Was~e ~cnagernent Insurance)
• Article 6 (Default by city)
• Article? (Default b:l Contractcr}
• Section a~D2.B {I~possi=ility of Performance)
• Section B.CS.C {Approval of Assign~ent by
.... aste Manage:nent}
7. Each City I,d 11 )l;eep the oti'"!er Cities L"lfo:rmed of
any plans it has to assign a portic:"] of its Allocation Quantit~{
and shall afford each of the other Citie~ the first right to
acquire any portion of its Allocation Quantity which it intends
to assign~
Each City will, as provided above, be responsible
for any Excess Quantity Disposal Fee which 1:',a'l be incurred as a
result of its assignment of Allocation Quantity. No City will
assign any or all o! its Allocation Quantity wit~out the prior
... ritten C:Orls~nt of the other Cities, ',.,'hic!1 conser;t will not be
unrea~~nab!y withheld,
-8-
.. ~~?;"
-",", ;;
"'"' !") 8. E'~ City ..... {ll appcir-lt one st'c:;rr perSOI"', .... 'no ... i11
be its represen~ative i~ staff co~tacts between and a~cn9 the
Cities with regard to this MOD and to ~ho~ day to day
Co7tl.'ItI.'J.nications and ["lotices r..?lating to it sr.ould be add::-essed.
These repre~entative5 ~ill endeav~r to fester
coordinatio)"'. and cooperation in the i;:-,ple:":"E';'.'.tatio;'1 of ":'t.is MOU
and the parallel contracts ~ith W~ste Management a~d with the
operator of the SM~RT Sta'c.iol"l. Tt.e represe:'ltati yes will !i1set at
l~ast once a month during P~ase 1 and (0= the first six months of
Phase 2 (i.e., until approxi~ately ~anua~y 1, 1994). Thereafter,
th~y may ~eet as freg~ently as they consider nCCE~Sarj and
approprL:!.te. The rep.teser.tatives ,"'ill r-.c,t ::a'd! author-ity to
modify or amend this MOU.
9. The term of ':.;':i5 M.eU is 3 0 y~ars fro=: th~
effective date Ci~e., O':~c'ber 25, 1551). Tr.e ~:')i..' • ... ill ter:r..ir.ate
prior to October 15, 2021, if all three Ci~ies have exhausted
their Allocation Q·..J.a.'ltities prier there"f.,:'I. Afto:r 25 years or
aft~r 6,700,000 Tons of t~e Cities' Alloca~icn QU3~tity has been
utili2ed, whichev2r occurs first, the three Cities will meet tc
discuss ~ll issues releva~t to the pos3ib:e extensipn c~ the Term
by one or ~ore Cities u~der Section 1.03 cf the co~tracts with
Waste Management. 'l'h~se l:leetings .... 'il1 conti:-F.l': fo!'" a period of
six (6) ~onths so as to permit the greatest degree ~f
coordination and coop~ration i~ the extensions. sunnyv31e is not
required to operate the S~aRT S~ation bej:'lnd Gctobe~ 15, 2021,
even if one or both of the other Cities ~ishes to extend the Tern
of its or t.!"~eir corltracts .... ith \o\laste Mar.agel7,ent~ ',l."'lless Sun.n~r"ale
elects to exten1 the Ter~ of its contract ~ith Waste Manage~ent
end then only for so long as it ex~€nds the Ter~ of its contract,
unless other arrange~ents sa~isfactory to Sunnyvale are rnade~
lO~ Capitalized t.er~s in this MOU have the me~ning
assigned to them in App@njix ene of the contracts be~wee~ the
Cities and Waste Manager.:e:'1t. In addition, "Municipal Solid Waste
delivered by a City" means, for purposes of: this MOU~ Municipal
Solid Waste delivered by City employees cr by its Designated
Hauler.
11. This MOO rndY be a~enjej o~li ~ith the consent cf
all parties, and any such a~e~d~~nt5 shall be in writing.
12. 'The Cities of Sunnyva Ie and Mount.ain VieW" agree to
deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the S~~aRT Station all
Recyclable Materi2l1s collected fret":. residences by city employees,
tfie City's Designated Hauler, or other Persons operating under
contract ~ith the City.
1]. mne ~;tiQS agree tha~ reven~e5 fro~ the sale of
Re~yclable Matecials delivered to thE SMaRT Station ~ill be
allocated among the:n in proportion to their respectlve
contribution of such mater ials I ta}dr,g ir:to ac~cunt qu,3nti ty ~
-'9-
. :')~~,;~~,; ,
.:~,~~~?: ~--
•
-
type and gr~.d.e" lr.aterials, including de~ e of separation.
parties will cH:,-.vt!Iop the details ar:d :!t'.9chan i-in,s nec-essary to
ilaplelner,'\:. this ~1.1ocation prior to th-e opening of the SMaRT
Station tor operation.
IN WITNESS "'-!-!EREOF, "t.he cities h.ave exec'J.t.~::i tr.,is ~O:J as Cif
the day and ye~r first above ~ritten.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
By: Title: __________________ __
Attest:
city Cle:.-k
Approved as to rcr~:
city Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By:
Tit'le~:~~~= __________ . _____ _
Attest:~~~~~c_---City Clerk
~pproved as to form:
City Attorney
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
By: Ti tie: ----------------
Attest:
c~it·y~c~l~e~rkr.·--·-----
Approved as to (or",,:
City Attorney
D~te: __________ ~ 1991
Datos: ______ _ 1991
o a ':e: _____ _ 1931
-lC-
-'