HomeMy WebLinkAbout0237.092--
L
·r
April 30, 1~92
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNC1L
Palo Alto, California
Members of the council:
Report in Brief
6
The Cities of Sunn~~als, Mountain Viev and Palo Alto have entered
into a Hemorandwn of Understanding (MOU) to provide for a l!iolid
waste materials transfer station (SMaRT) in Sunnyvale. The S1:.ation
will acee.p-t solid 'Wa.ste froln the three cities; after removin9
recyclables, the waste will then be transferred to Kirby Canyon
landfill. This report requests that Coyncil approve a second MOU
~ith the city of Sunnyvale. This new KOU will become effective
only if the Sunnyvale City Council decides to reject proposals from
private parties and determines to build the SMaRT Station itself.
It provides that certain conditions must be met, in order for Palo
Alto to participate in a project built by sunnyvale~ It also
provides the means by which to assure sunnyvale that, if the
conditions are met, Palo Alto 'Will share in the capital and
operating costs of the project. The esti'lnated. capital cost for the
station is $2~.27 million. Palo Alto's portion of the capital cast
would be $5.37 million or 21 percent of the total. Palo Al~o's
portio~ of the operating cost of the Station would be $1.8& million
or 21 percent of the total for the first year of operation.
staff is convinced that this MOU is appropriate and provides a
viable alternative ~o a privately constructed and operated
facility. It is recommended that Council approve the MOU which
authorizes the city Manager to ~ommit Palo Alto to the project if
the. publicly funded option is selected by the Sunnyvale City
Council.
~karound
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for construction and operation of the
SMaRT Station ~as developed by Sunnyvale as the lead ag~ncy, ~ith
assistance of the staffs from Mountain View and Falo Alto. The p~p
CKR:2)7:92
L
L
was issued in January 1992~ proposals 'lier-e re:ceived fro"jlL two fins
or. A.pril 2, 1992. One firm's proposal ... as rejected primarily
because the firm fAiled to submit a proposal bond. Staff from the
three citIes evaluated the remaininq proposal submitted by western
Was.te, Industries (WWI}. and lire currently negotiating a final
ccntract4 Under the existir.g arrangements Sunnyvale may reject all
propc-sals and, instead, construct the Station itself. Sl.lnnyvale
mey opera.te thE' Stdtion, or contract ..... i th a private party for
operation. The staff's of tte three cities believe that s~ch an
approach may have advantages and are evaluating this option along
vith the proposal received fro~ ~!.
If the $unn~'ale city Council decice5 to proce~d ~ith construction
of the SMaRT station on its own, it must h~ve assuranceS ehat the
other two cities will participate in the capital i!nd operating
costs of the SMaRT Station. This ~econd MOU provides the mechani6~
for Palo Alto and Mountain Vie~ to give that assurance, provided
certain con~itions are met by Sunnyvale.
D iscug tic;n
The first MOU and the first supplement approved by Counci1 on April
6, 1992 (CHR:200.92), contemplated a simile. It::'~,--~~nn ccntract
with a third party to build anA ~r==~~~ ~he SMaRT Station. It did
not add.ress certain concerns the citi.es have if the project is
publicly financed rather than privately financed. Undl!!r a p:.Jblicly
financed arrangement, Sunnyvale will be responsible for securinq
the funds to pay ~~e costs of design l construction management and
construction of all the improvements for the SMaRT Station. The
cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto ~ill reimburse sunnyvale for
& proportionate share of capital costs based on the portion of thl!!
capacity for which each h~s contracted. Each city's share of the
total capital costs l including debt service) an~ percentage for
reimbursement to Sunnyvale is:
Palo Alto
Mountain view
Sunnyvale
21.2H
23.45\
55.28%
The anticipated capital costs are described in Exhibit "B" of the
~ttached MOLT. Exhibit "en of the MOU contains the categories of
allowable annual operating and mainten~nce expenses for the
facility. Staff has included as attachments to this report line
item estimated budgets for the capital costs (Attachment Bl and
first year operatinq costs (Attachment C). Falo Alto's
proportionate share of annual operating costs 'Would be
approximately $1.S6 millio~ (21~), subject to reconciliation
annually~
-2-
CMR:237:92
L
i
r
..
, ,
f
r ,
L
Other conditions included in the second MOV are:
2.
3.
It SunnY-vale's contr.act for the construction ot the SKaRT
Station exceeds the capital costs budgeted ir. Exhibit WE" by
20 percent, Sunnyvale must ~otify Mountain Vie~ and Palo Alto~
Ho ... ever. the MOU precluQ.es Palo Alto and Mountain Vie.,., from
unreasonably delaying or 'Wit.hholdinq consent to an amended
budget and further requires binding arbitration if a dispute
arises.
Palo Alto and Kountain Vie'W .. ill pay Sunnyvale a proportione;te
share of the. capita! a.nd operating costs on a ql~arte.rly ba.sis.
There will be an annual reconciliation based on actual
tonnages delivered by each city~
Recycli01q revenuas from the sales of materials recovered fro:n
the solid ..... aste stream ..... ill be allocated among the three
cities in proportion to their respective contribution to the
waste stream.
4. Sunnyvale may not enter into any agreements ..... ith a third party
tor use of the SMaRT station ~ithout the approval of either
Palo Alto or Mountain Vie...... If Palo Alto or Mountain View
'Wishes to include a t~ird party, that City -must first obtain
Sunnyvalets approval.
5. Palo Al to and Mountain view sha 11 be exempt trom any tax,
levy, assessment or other charge which may be imposed by
Sunnyvale on ths use of the SMaRT S~ation if toe effect of the
charg~ is tQ disproportionately and inequitably burden Palo
Alto and Mountain View 'Whil~ shielding Sunnyvale from the
charges..
The terms and conditions in the balance of the second MOD are
essentially the same as in the first MOU.
Statf from the three citie.s have prepared both the estimated
capital and operating budgets proposed; additionally a consultant
retained by Sunnyvale has revie~ed the proposed budgets and
concluded the costs are consistent vith projects of similar scope
and size.
Palo Alto Public Works staff is completing a feasibility study of
alternative uses for the Los Altos Treatment Plant site; onE phase
of this study included a potential transfer station and mate.rials
recovery facility. The estinlated capital cost for a facility
handlinq only Palo ~lto's solid waste would be approximately $6.5
million, ·",hich i$ $1.1 'million :higher than Pa.lo Altol5o
proportionate share of the Sunnyvale facility.
-3-
CIIR:237:92
L
ti :.<.' .... , -. ," ~."
6..;::c
. " . ~--" , ,
, ~. " ..• -,
2ecom:QJepdations
Staff recommends that Council authori~e the city Manager to sigD
the second Memorandum. of Understanding, ccmtinqent upon similar
approval by the City Councils of sunnyvale and Mountain View.
Respectfully submitted#
':#r:rL/~~#.£
MICHAEL H. MILLER
oeput, Director, public Wor~s operations
//.\ ';U(\ /7 "tAu~k~+Kt..£f<.A.--~_
DAVID G. ADAMS
Director of Public Works
WI
City Manager ,
Attachments:
=:237:92
A
B
Memorandum of Understandinq
Estimatec Capital Costs
Estimated Annual operating Costs
-4-
L
• •
SECOND xnc.ORABDUM OF UliDERB'1'ASDUfG
AMONG THE CITIBS 07
IIOCllTAIJi VlEW, PALO ALTO AND S~
RELATING TO T'R8' C021St'RUCTI01l' AHD OPERArIOH OP A
IlATERIALB RECOVERY AND TRAJlSFBR STATION AND
~ LONG TERK DISPOSAL OF KUNIcrPAL SOLID WASTB
AoT n.R.B Y C1L!lYOX f ,
THIS SE"CQND MEMORANOUK OF UNDERSTANDING ('"SE!c,~nd MOD"') is
made as of the ____ day of _ .. __ ~ 1992 ( by a.-:d ar:-.ong the City
of Mountain View, the City ot PalQ Alto, and the City of
Sunnyvale (collectively .rei ties tl ) •
The cities aqree as fcllo· ..... s:
z. Backgro~n_t:! to and purpose ot-__ ~OU
1. The Cities, acting collectively and cooperatively,
}'lave negotiat€:d contractual cOI;'1mitments from Waste Management of
Califorrda, Inc. (",,",'aste Manage!T1ent n) for solid waste disposal
capacity at the Kirby Canyon Sanitari L3ndfill in San Jose. The
amount of capZtcity secured is sufficient to accorrxLodate the
cities' individual requirements for a period of approximately :30
year-s.
2. Hie terms and condi tion.':i of this comml tment of
disposal capacity are set forth in three separate~ but
interrelated, contracts between each of the Cities and Waste
Management.
3. It vas a condition precedent to the effectiveness
of the contract between Sunnyva Ie and Waste Manager:te!'1t that all
three Cities, on or before October 15, 1991~ have entered into a
MOU under which Mountain View and Palo Alto commit to deliver
Hunic:ipal Solid Waste generated within their geographic
boundaries to a Mate:rials Recover;{ and Transfer-Station ,"SMaRT
Station") to be constructed on property Q'Jned by Sunnyvale and to
pay Sunnyvale a fee fOr the use of the SMaRT station.
4~ In order to satisfy the condition precedent just
described, and to fZlcilitate continued coopera.tion and
coordinated action in relation to the SMaRT Station and Waste
Management, the Cities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
dated as of september 30, 1991 ("HOU").
5. As contemplated by the MOU I Sunnyvale negotiated
with Waste Management regarding ttle terms and conditions under
W'hich Waste Management 'Io'ould construct and thereafter operate the
SMaRT station. At the end of December 1991. all of the Cities
concluded that it would be in their best interests for Sunnyvale
L
t.
r ,
I r'
t
i
I
! ,
I ,
f
L
r ,
to issiJe a Request for Proposals ("RFpll) to ':l:I..lal,ified finns for
construction and operation of the S!~aRT Statio!1 r 2t cOc.Jrse of
action a.lso conte~\plated by the MQU.
f.i. An RFf was devclop-ed bi' Sunny-.'ale. ""ith the advice
and assistance of tha other Cities and issued in January 1992.
The Rf'P and addenda thereto reflect the CGr..s..:r . .sus of all cities
as to matters of bath fermat and ccn~ent. including the SMaRT
stdtion's capacity of lf50a tons per day.
7. Proposals in response to the RFP loTere: recei ve-d
from t .. o firn.s en April 2, 199'2. Sunn}"'"ale, '""ith the assistance
of the other' Cities, is now e'ldlu·3.t.ing those proposals.
8. The contract tet .. ,;een Sunnyvale and W~ste
Management also envisions an option under ,*,hich Sunnyvale ",'ould
not award a single cor.tr~ct for cQnstr~Gtion and operation of the
Station but '''".wulcl.. inste:ad, cc,nstr-lJ.ct tho; Station itself or
joint.ly .... ith one or both of tr:.e other Cities and thereafter
decide on the rn~thod a~d details of ar. operating contract. The
Cities believe that such &n "pprl:;.ac:h nay have adv.1.ntages for all
cities and should be evaluated along ~ith the Proposals received
in response to the RFP.
9. 'h""heth~r Sunny .... ale selects a Proposal and a .... 'ard:; a
contract fer construction and operation of the SMaRT Station to
one of the propose.rs or elects t,:> construct the Station itself
and operate it, or defer the ope4dting proceduces fer a later
contract, Sur:nyvale nrust indicate to Waste Manageillent on or
before April 30, 1992 that it is prepared to proceed ~ith
construction .of the SMaRT Station. Provided Waste Management
makes certain requir~d re.presentations regarding the pern.its for
l<irby Canyon by April JD, 19092, Sunnyvale must thereafter decide
to actually proceed ~ith construction either through one
ccntract, sEveral separate contracts l or some ether method such
as constructing the station itself. And in order for sunnyvale
to proce4Z-d I«'ith construction cf tr.e SMaRT Station on its o·.'n l it
must haVe the assurance of the other Cities that they ~ill
participate in the capital and operating costs of the SMaRT
Station vhich ~ill be directly incurred by Gunn1vale~ Since the
MOD, and the First Suoplement thereto dated as of March 17, 1992$
contemplated a single~, long-term contract v.'it.h a third party
which would finance, dasign. co~struc~ and operate the sMaRT
station lit doe~ net directly address certain aspects on ..... hich
all Cities desire to have a clear agreement amongst themselves
before Sl,lnnyvale proceeds with the alternative of financing and
constructing the SMaRr Statien itself.
10. In order to allow for a timely decision to ~e made
between Sunnyvalets accepting one of the P~oposals and
constructing the SMaRT Station itself~ the Cities now desire to
memQrialize agreement on ho,*, that decision ~ill be made, and on
their respective obligations amongst themselv~s during
-2-
L
t
"
•
"" .. ,---
L
construction a~d operation of th~ Station if it is in fact
decided that it is i~ the best interests of all Cities for
Sunnyvale to fi'rl3nCe and construct the SMaRt Station itself.
1. Sunnyv"ale wj 111 with the assistance of the ether
Cities, ~valuate th~ Fropcsals received. On or bcfo~e April 29,
1992, the City Manager of Sunny • .rale -• .'i 11 pr~se.nt. a re90rt to the
City Man<:,,;gers of Mountain Vie",' and Palo Alto. Thi$ report, W'hich
may be presented orally, will address the advantages and
disadvantagss of (a) S~nn~~ale~s accepting the best Proposal or
{bj Sunnyvale's r~jecti~g ell Proposals and proceeding to finance
and const~4ct the SMaRT Station itself, utilizing a series of
prime contracts a!1d trje assistance of an exper iE!nced engineering
firm as construction manager.
2~ sunn}~ale ~ill not reject all proposals and
proceQd to construct the SMaRT Station itself unless the City
Managers of all three Cities agree that this is the best course~
If all three City Managers do so ag~ee .. that reco~endation ~ill
be made. to the SunnY'o'ale City Council, The Sunn:rv'ale City
Council .. notw-ittlstanding such a reC'.:rrl'.mendation .. may decide to
accept one of the Proposals. If it doe-s accept one of the
Proposals, thi5 Second MOU will be of no further force or effect,
as provided in Section VI.2.
rX-I .. ~r&tiv8 ProvisJ-on Applicaj>le To 'P!l!l~_I1!:_ One (!i4!f~
~~.Ka.R'l' Stati5l'!l. Begilfs pperation
l.~ Sunn}""Vale ",'il1 arrange for the construction of the
SMaRT Station, which will be consistent in all naterial respects
(e.g~ location, size, throughput ca.pacity. recycling
capabilities) with ths Project des~riocj in the RFP and the
addenda thereto, unless the changes are agreed to by both
M'-:>untain Vielol' and Palo 1o.1to.
2. Sunnyvale .. "ill req'J.i:re. in all construction
contracts that the SMaRT Station be completed sufficiently so
that it is able to operate as a Transfer Station (i.e., for
Municipal Sol id Waste to be trai,s ferred to Transfer Vehicles for
delivery to Kirby canyon) by July 1, 1993, as conte~plated in the
Cities" Disposal Contracts vith Waste Management.
3. Sunnyvale "'ill be solely responsible for securing
funds to pay the costs of design, construction management,
payment of $400 1 000 to Waste Managc1!',ent fer design docur.'.ents .. 3.nd
construction of the SMaRT Station (and associated site
improvements, including aCCE!GS roads) and for administra~ion of
the contracts involved in the design and construction process.
Sunnyvale will keep Mountain View and Pclo Alto informed, on a
regular basis, of the progress of construction. Sunnyvale ~ill
promptly alert the Cities to any difficulties encountered in
1~'jI:R. 7 -3-,/21/92
,
"
-
L
---------------_._-----'
construction. In particular, SUi'lnyvale \\'ill immediately alert
the Cities to any possibility that the construction ~ill not be
comple~ed by July 1, 199J as descrIbed in the foregoing
paragraph.
4. Sc.nnyvale will o".m thE" S~aRT station.
5. ThE:! citie:; of Mountain ~,Jie\.; ,~T:d Palo Altc -""ill
reil'!','burse Sunn)"' .. ale f~r their-sr:.are of all ccst.s of desigr.,
paY!'\e.nt of $4000,000 to waste Man3gement, const.t'u-:tion and
constructi':m management related to the Sl'1aR'r Station and
associated sit~ ioprov$:IDents, inclt..lding the aCCESS roads
(~capital costs"}. Each city's share will be based on its
proportion ot the three Cities' capacity cu~rently reserved at
Kirby Canyon, as sha~n on Exhibit A to each city's contract with
Waste Management, a copy of which is ~ttached he~eto as ~xhibit A
and incorporated herein tly this r~.fe::-ence. ]..5 shown on Exhibit
A, each city's share of the total capital costs, and the
percentage Mountain View and Palo ~l~o will reir.curse to
Sunnyvale is:
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
23.4-5%
23..27%
55.28%
6. Sunnyvale anticipates issuing revenue bonds,
certificates of participation, or other evidencE's of indebtedness
to pay for 50ll!e or all of the c-apital costs. If sunnyvale does
finance som'S or all of the capital costs; Mountain View and Palo
~to ~ill pay to Sunnyvale their share of the d~bt ser,ice, based
on the percentages set forth in the foregoing pa~agraph. Such
payments will t:e mace at the frequer.cies req1..lired by the evidence
of indebtedness. and at time.s required to permit Sunnyvale to make
the periodic debt service payments ·"",hen due. To the ext€-nt that.
some or all of the capit.al costs are not financed, but are ~i3id
b~{ S'J.o0Y'"ale from its funds, the.n ~our,tain Vie'",· ana PalQ Alto
~ill reimburse sunnyvale for their propc=ticnate s~are of 5~ch
costs advanced by Sunny'.,.ale j '.riithin thirty (30) days after
receipt of a bill from Sunnr,ale.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit B, is a propcsed budget
for the anticipated capital cost.s for the Station. If the City of
SunnY""ale hereafter detenr,ines that its actual capital cOsts will
exceed the projected cdpita~ costs reflected in Exhibit B by .more
than t'.wenty percent (20%), sunny--v.:Ile. shall notify the otr.er
c'lties wit.hin a reasonable time of such de'l:cx!liinaticri and the
Cities shall pt"omptly revie'..; tt.e capital costs incurred and to be
incurred:' :=;'o"!!',pleting the staticn, and shall establish a ne,.
budget for ;..he remaining improvements and ather costs t.hat
compri~e the capital investment. None of the Cities shall
unreasonably delay or vithhold its consent in authorizing such an
alIlended budget. For these purposes, it shall be unreasonable to
refuse consent t~ additiondl capital costs which are neces$ary
1~;a2. ? -4-
L
[
I
t
l
\
L
for the completion of the Staticn aild ..... hien aTel:;udg-=t.ed
consistent '"'ith market rates for '",he required 1:'t:;:r;teri::"ls, labor
and effort l including admlnistr, -e and oVerhea ::::osts to be
incurred by Surm.fvale. If trle c. of Sunnyv",le tr.ereafter ag'ain
~etenllines that its actual costs. _ i' pur-suing the cOr.1pl p.tion of
the station exceof~ds an approved revised budgo<:t al':'Jount by r:iore
than twenty percent (2Cl), SU:"1.Myvale shall again notify the etber
Cities within a reasonable ti~e of such dete~ination and the
cities shall again revie"", and apprc,ve a ne',.,r budget as in the
first instance. If t~e Cities fail to reach agr~e~ent on a
revised budget under this provision, the Cities shall immediately
submit such a dispute to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator
shall determine what the adjust~j budget should be.
IV.. coop~.rative1~9v-i5ion5 _.~p~.-te to Pha~ __ e Two (A.ft_tl:
!...h~ SMaRT S.tation B~g.ins oper_.~
1. ~ach of the three Cities agrees to deliver
Municipal Solid Waste to t~H'! SJ.'aRT station in sufficient quantity
50 that 75 percent of each city's respective annual Allocation
Quantity~ set forth in Exhibit A to the Cities' contracts with
Waste Management l is delivered to Kirbr canyon. In addition~
each of the. Cities agrees to deliver Mi.H'licipal S-:-;lid Waste to the
SMaR't Stat i 0:"_ in an amount not less than 88 percent ot each
city's respective anT".ual Allo,::ation Quantity set forth in Exhibit
A.
2. Commencing O~ July 1, )992 all three Cities ~ill
collaborate in planning for COTn..-;e;;ce",ent of operations of the
SMaRT Station including tr..e methods of Gperation (i.e., by t_he
City of Sunny;.."ale directly or t.hrough a contract with a private
sector firm) and in the developnent of ReqU€5t fo~ Proposals or
Invitation for Bids to ooerate the SMaRT stati~r.. The cities
'Will endeavor to r€aC!l a· conse.nsu~ C'n the most -advant.ageous
method of operation including the terns and conditions of any
operating ccnt.ract l tl'1e phasing sct'.edul~ for recycling
o'perations~ etc~ 1'-.11 Cities rE:!co-gnize, hQ"",'ever, that as the
public entity ownirl~ and " .. ith t.he-responsibility to operate the
SMaR~ station, Sunnyvale must be solely responsible for ultimate
decisions on the method of operation, including the format and
contract of an RFP/IFB and subsequent o~erating contract.
Not .... ithstanding this recogni tier., ho·,,;ever. if any city is not
fully satisfied 'With elements in the PiF/IfE \,Ihich sunnyvale
staff ir.tends to recommend to the Sunnyvale City Council, the
City Man~ger-s of all three Cities , ... ·ill neet to consider-the
issues and alternatives~ SUl'nyvale \"ill not issue the RFP/IFB
until this meeting has been held, or an adequate opportunity for
it to be held has been provided.
J. Each of the three Cities agre~s to pay to
S~nnyvale or to the operator of the SMaRT station, as Sunn)~ale
directs, the follO\dng:
L
,.
L
r·
A~ Qj..§..Q~al F~ ____ !_p.Jus app1 iCi".:'b.l.~ ______ t:axes and fee.?.}
~~ waste M~n.£.9_-=.merd:. under endch 91 t.i .. ~J~L£..Qn_t~:!,ct " • .'1 t!":: W~u?...t..l§!
Managoc>ment. Tbe Di:sposal Fee due fro::! each city \.Jill be
detereined by multiplying t.he t.ctal arnaur,t due as s.hown on
periodic ir.voices froT:: '\-Iaste ~'a:-lagez:ent [Clr H!J.1"licipal S::.-lid Waste
c1eliverea t.o Kirby Car.yon by a fraet ion, the nlimerz.tor of which
is the amount., in Tons, of !'<.ur-:icipal Sclid Waste delivered by
each city to the Transfer station, and th~ denominator of which
is the total a~ount of Municipal solid Waste delivered to the
Transfer station.
In )""laking the foroesoi,,-S calculation/ the
following rules will apply:
(1) Only Municipal sc,lid Waste tor '.;hich a
Tipping Fee \wuld have beEln charged under th2 t!?'!'~s of the FF?
issued January 17, 1992 ar.d r~feren":"cd i~ Section 1 ~~. abo"-l~
(i.e., waste material in vehicles that are directed to the
tipping floor of the Transfer Stati or:) · ... 'i 11 be included in t.he
calculation; Re.Cjclable Matl:'xials ·.~·hich are separately delivered
for processing and n:covery, ar.d w·tJich do not ne~d to be routed
t.hrough the tipping flocr •• ,.rill be e>.:cluded~
(2) If the TrdI"lsfer Station accepts Publicly
Hauled Waste (i.e. ~ ... ·aste ;.,-:'ich is delivered by private
individuals and not by the Cities' Designated Haulers), and the
Cities receive a portion of the 'ripping fee revenu,=s paid by ~\Jch
individuals, then Municipal Solid Waste so delivered will be
attributed to the city {L'om ' ... ·l',ich it or the driver originates and
.. ill be included in the above calculation.
(3) If the Transfer Station accepts PUblicly
Hauled Waste (Le., ..... 'aste '-Jhich is deliv(!red by ~rh'ate
ind.ividuals and not by the cities' Designated Hau.!ers), but the
Cities do not receive any p~rtion of the Tipping fee reve~ues
paid t:y such individuals, tr.-e ~i!u;:icipal Solid 'V<'aste so delivered.
""'ill not be attributed to the city frc~ which it or the d:river
oriqina~es and ~ill not bs i~clu.ded in the above Cdlculaticn.
'the same formu.la will be used to allc,cate credit tor Re.cycling
conducted at the ]'ran.s;:fer Station w,rhich involves .Municipal Solid
waste delivered to the tipping floo!".
As or April 1992, the Disposal Fee is $21.99 plus $5.53 in
applicable taxes and fees , although the parties rl;cognize that
the city of San Jose has anr;Quncec. its intention to increase
taxes on disposal cf solid waste: in San Jose. · .... ·.r.ich, if e,lacted,
would increase the amount of taxes and tees substantially.
B. The Cities' §.t1nSl_re of th~Jnirnurn---.Q..l.,lj!!)tity
.Disposal Fee, if in any ye_~nL_ the tota 1 HQJJ..lcipal SQ..lid ,"'aste
del ivered mto Kirby Caryyon is less ttL~JJJ:.h.L..l;otal of the th_:r:_~
cities' A110cat.l".9ILQ.1Lantity fg.I:n_mthat Y£..tl.
lS9a2.r -6-
L
.~.
i
I ,
,.
If the Mini~um Quantit:r Disposc:.l fee? beco!:1es
payable I it 'Jlill be allocated ap".ong t.he three Cities as follo' ... 's!
• if only one city fail~d to deliver an
amount of Municipal Solid \<"as't_e to the SMaRT Station equal to 75
percent of its annual J..llocatio" Quantity divided by one lr,inus
the SM&RT Station recycling percentage (a single percentage to b~
agreed upon from tim~ to time}~ then that ci~y is solely
responsible lor the Minimum Quan-tit.y Disposal Fee pro',lisior,
::becoming operative and it sr.all pay t~,e Disposal Fee due for th~
difference bet .... 'een the Minirnmn Quantlty and the qu,·H':tity of
M .... micipal Solid WastE actually dE:liv(:reo;
• if t· ... 'o Cities fail to deliver an ar.tount
of Mun.icipal Solid Waste to the S!1dRT station equal to 75 p€rcent
of their respective annual Allocation Quantities divided by one
minus the SMaRT Station recycling percentaqe, then each of those
two Cities' share of the Disvosal Fee due for the difference
between the Minir.mm Quantity-and the quantity of Municipal selid
Waste actually del ivered '.,ill ce determined by a fraction, the
numerator of 'Jro'hich is the ar:lc'.lnt, in Tons, by whi.:-h e..)ch citr
fell short 0: delivering 75 perc~nt of its Allocation Quantity~
and the denominator of which is the sum. in Tons, of those two
amounts;
• if all three Cities fail to deliver an
amount of Muni-::ipal Solid Waste to the SMaR'r $t.ation equal to 75
percent of their respective annual Allocatia~ Quantities divided
by o~e minus the SMaRT Station recycling percentage~ then each
city's share of the Disposal Fee due for the difference b2t-ween.
the Minimum Quantity and the ~uantity of Municipal Solid Waste
3ctually delivered will be determined by a fraction, the
numerator of -which is the alC.ount r in Tons, by which each city
fell short of delivering 75 percent of its Allocation Quantity,
and the denomir::ator of .... hieh is the am~unt. in Tons, by · .... hich
total deliveries to Kirby Canyon fell short ct the "total Minimum
Q1.!antity for all thr.ae Cities.
It is the intent of all Cities to coordinate
efforts to meet Minimum Quantity requirements and, thus, avoid
additional Disposal Fees. Ho~~ver. no city has any obli9ation
under this MOU to deliver marc Nunicipal Solid loi'aste to the SMaRT
Stat-. ion than it is required t.o do by it.s contract. with Waste
Manage:ment in order to offset the Minimum Q-:.Jantity .obligations of
any otr.er city or Cities ..... 'hich do nDt deliver the :min inJ."l . .Hi1 amount
of Municipal Solid Waste r.eq·wired to be delivered und~r their
contract(s) ~ith Was~e Management.
C. The Cities' Sh_~K§! __ ,Df EXC~ll£nt:ity pisposal
Fee. if in any year the tot3 __ L}1unicipal Solid ~aste del ivered to
Kirby Canyon exceeds llD_percent of the total of the three
Cities' Allcea_tioD Quantity fOL that year and one or more of the
1.5982. r -7-
L
.J.
q ,
i
I
citi~~_~J:t~2[have assigned ___ '?Q111._~ or all of their-Alloca.tion Q'J.antity
to a municipality other th,::!'1 one of tll.E' ~t~lr-ee cities.
If an Excess Quantity Disposal Fee becomes
pa.yable, it 10111] be allo,;:ated all'loj'''lg the tl".ree Cities as follo .. "s-:
• if only one city has assigned scme or
all of its Allocation Quantity to a n~nicipality other than one
of the three Cities, then th2!t city ,,"'ill ce solely re-spo'"1sible
for the Excess Quantity DispC'sal F<!e b~cot(1ing ope~dtive and it
shall pay the Excess Quantity Disposal Fee due for the difference
bet .... een the total annual Allocat.ion Quanti t;{ and the actual
quantity of Municipal Solid Waste aelivered frD~ the SMaRT
Station to l<irby Cani'oD;
if more than one city has assigned some
or ;all of its Allocation Q"uantity te, a ::""unicipality other than
orle" of the three cities l then its share .... ill be deterElined by the
fraction .;hich the surn of Municipal Soltd Waste delive~ed to the
SMaRT station by it and by its assignee be~rs to all Municipal
Solid Waste delivered to the Transfer Station by 311 Cities which
have also assigned their A.llocation Q'uant.ity ar:d by their
assigne~:s.
D. Opera'::i:"'lg aricLl·~ainte'!dnce Costs oL the SMaRT
St.ation
Mountain Vi~w ar.d Falo Alto 'I,o'ill pay to
Sunnyvale or the St,ation Operator, as SunnJ-lale directs, their
share cf the costs of operating and ~air.tenance of the SMaRT
Station. Such costs 'Will include the categories of expense
listed on Exhibit C attached her-eto and incorporateod herein by
this reference.
Eacf1. citJ"s share of ope!'ating and
maintenance costs !Jill be detennin~d by r:tultiplyir:g tt,e total
operating and !Mdntenance costs by a fractiol'"'1 the numerator cf
which is the a.'Tlount, in tons, e,f l1unicipal Selid Waste delivered
by each city to the station during the period for , ... :flich costs are
being allocated, and the der.ol7linator is the total amount in Tons
of Municipal Solid h'aste delivered to the Station by all three
Cities during that period.
If required by Sunnyvale, pa':t'111ents shall be
made quarterly ~ payable on or be for€ the l5th day of the second
month in that quarter, based on es~irnated deliveries, with an
annual recoi1ciliation based on actl.:al dcliveric£, during a 12:
month period.
Palo Alto and Mountain View will pay to
Sunnyvale, or to the operator of the SnaP.T Station as Sunnyvale
159a2 .1 -8-4/27192
.>
directs, a Hc"st Fee for use of the SHaFer Station. 1<.t the
commencement of this MOU. the Host. F€e ,,,,ill .be $2.28 per ':'on of
Municip~l Solid Waste delivered to the SMaR~ s~ation.~ ~he Host
Fee will be adjusted as cf July 1. 1992 and a~nually thereafter
to reflect changes in. the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
Me.tropolitan Area COnSU!'1Er Price Ir,dex (1\11 Urban Consu~et's;
1982-e4~lOC) compiled and published ~y the U~S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Lavor Statistics~ 'The Index level as of May
1991 (136.2) shall be the Base Index. The Host f'ee shall be
adjusted on J'uly 1, 1992, tor exar.1ple, by Itultiplying $2.28 by
one plus the percentage change from the Base Index to the Index
level as of May 1992.
3. Th€ Cities dg~ee that revenues frcn the g~le of
Recyclable Materials delivered to the SH3RT Station 'Will be
allocated among them in propor~ion to their respective
contribution of such mat€rials, taking into account quantity~
type and grade of !!laterials i incl1..:ding degree of separation~ The
parties will develop the details and Inechanisns necessary to
imFlement this. allocation prior to the. cpening of the SMaRT
Station for operation.
1. Each city ","ill cot:"iply with its obligations under
Section 2.04 of its contract ;..rith waste Manag€n;ent and will
require its Designated Haulers to do so. Each city ""ill comply
and 'Will require its Designated Hau.lers to cor::ply w"i th the
Hazardous Waste ZxclusiDn Pr-ogc.2:Itl adopted by the operator of the
SMaRT Station.
2. Each city 'Will pay amounts due. promptly and within
the time periods specified for paymen't in Section 4.04 of its
contract with Waste Management. Palo Al to and Mot..1ntai.n VieW' \rollll
pay amounts due Sunnyvale in sufficient time to allow sunnyvale
to pay Waste Manage,':,ent .... i thin the tirne p€ricd speci£ied fer
payment in Sunnyvale's ccntr-act-..... it1'1 ",'aste l-':anage:;:Jent.
3. The Cities will consult with each other and use
their best efforts to establish consistent, coordinated
positions, policies and actions in relation to Wast~ Management
including, but nat limited tO I issues arising under the follOwing
provisions of the Cities' contracts ...... i th t,.'aste Management:
'5~"7
Section 1.03 (Extension of Term)
Se.ct,ion 4 ~ 03 (Eff2Ct of fut.ure Regulations)
Section 4.04 {Billing and Payment Procedure)
Section 5.02 . "It. (Waste Management Insurance)
Article 6 (Defau]t by City)
Article 7 (Default by Contractor)
Section 8.02~B (Ir:;possibility of Performance)
Section 8.D5.C (Approval of Assignment by
i-I'aste ~laJ'lagement)
-9-
--~---.-.--. ---
L
-
, i
~, '
4. Each city wjll keep the oth~r Cities informed of
any plans it has to assign a portlon c,f it.s >"llocaticn Quantity
and shall afford each of tr.c otl'-.er Cities the first right to
acquire any portion of its Allocati-:Jn Qu,;:mtity t,which it ir:tends
to assign.
Each city villi as provide-d above, b:;! responsible
for any Excess Quantity Disposal fee .... 'hieh rr,ay be incurred as a
result of its assignme.nt of Allocat':'on Quantity. No city .. rill
assign any or all of its Allocation Qua~tity without the prior
written consent of the ether Ci~ies, which cO;1sent will not be
unreasonably withheld.
sunnyvale Inay net enter into any agreement 'With a
third party (excluding third parties ,.rno are its Hunicipal Solid
Waste franchise haulers and those haul ing public]}' H.;lUler:l Waste}
for the del ivery of an}' '~;aste pr-oduct to the SYu\RT station
without Ule approval of either Palo .~lto or Mountain Vie>-". If
either Pelo Alto or _'Mountain Vie'''; is the proponent of such a
third. party contract, it must first obtain the approval of
Sunnyvale. Such approva;ls ~hall not be unreasonably delayed or
refus-ed.
5. Each city ..,ill appoint one staff person who \dll
be its rep!:'esentativE: in staff contacts betweei1 and among the
Cities with regard to this Second !':QU and to ..... ·hOIll day to day
communications and notices relating to it should be addressed.
These repr€sentatives .... ill en':'~avor to fost.er
coordination and cooperation in the i~pleI:lentat:'on of this Second
MOG and the parallel contracts ~ith Wast~ Management and with the
operator of the SMaRT Station. The representatives ~ill meet at
leazt once a month during Phase 1 and for the first six months of
Phase 2 (Le., until approx:irnatelr January 1, 1994). The-reafter,
they may meet as frequently as they cons ider necess·:;,.ry and
appropriate. The repr-esentatives 'will ;jot have authority to
modify or amend this Seccnd l~au.
6. The ter~ of this second MOO is 3D years from the
effective date of the first Moe (i.e., october 15. 1991). The
Second MOV "'ill terll1inate pric:.'r to October IS, 2021, if all three
Cities have exhausted their AllocatiO:i Quantities prior thereto.
After 25 years or after 6,700 r OOQ T::Jlt5 of the Cities' Allocation
Quantity has been utilized, ~hichever occurs first~ the three
Cities will meet to discuss all issues relevant to the possible
extension of the Term by one or l:1or-e Cities ~nder Section 1.0J of
the contracts with Waste Manage~ent. These meetings will
continue for a period of six (6) months so as to permit the
greatest degree of coordir.ation and cooperatio'l in the
extensions. Sunnyvale is not reqlJired to operate the SMaRT
Station beyond October 15, 2021, even if one or both of the othe::
Cities wishes to extend tne Terl'" of its or their contracts .... ith
Waste Management, unless sunnyvale elects to extend the Term of
15952.7 -10-
L
~ .
. 'l:. :11 ----, ~ ;)~:':;,
. .2l~
_ .. ..1
I,
" tl
" ~--j r, , ,
, I
I
:: ~. "\ :., .... ':
, <
~~$f1.
-
among the Cities will be go~erncd by ~he MOU and the First
Suppl~ment thereto.
3. 'h"'hichever course is follc .• ed, the Cities hereby
l'ee;!tirrn their commit:TJent to the Kirby c~nyon Dispo~al contracts
and to the construction of the S~aRT Station by July 1, 1993, as
contemplat~d by the Disposal Contracts.
IN WITNESS "l-iHEREOf. the cities have ex8(; .... t-ed this Second HOC]
as of the da.y and lrear first ab8'Ve w"rit't.en.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
~r~'1~e7:------_-___ ' __ ~~~~~~_-~--
Attest:~~~~~~ City Clerk
Approved as to fo~:
City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ~LTO
By:
Tit'17e~:~~~ __________ _
Attest: __ =-=;:--___ _
City Clerk
Approved as to fOrE:
City Attorney
CItY OF SUNNYVALE
By:
TitIlee7:~=-=-=-=.=. ==================
Attest:~~~~ ____ _
Ci ty C'lerk------
Approved as ~o form:
City Attorney
L
Date: ____ _ , 1992
Date: . _____________ , 1992
D3te: _____ __ 19:92
-12-
·.··1.,.··
-.J
its contr~ct with Waste Management and then only for so long as
it extends the Term of its contra'.:t, unless other-arrangements
satisfactory to sunnyvale are n:ade.
7. Capitalized ter=s in this Second MOU have the
meaning assigned to them in Appendix One of the c0ntracts between
the Cities atl.d Waste Ma:n:iger..ent, In ad:Htior'r HMunicipal Solid
waste delivered by a city~ neans, for purposes of this Secc'nd
MOU, Municipal Solid l";Cl,ste delivered 1:.y city er.~ployee.s or by its
Designated Hauler.
8. 'I-his Second MOD may be a~ende-_d o:-.ly \iith the
consent of all parties, and any suet. amendments shall be in
writing.
9. The Cities .. ill de.velop detailed procedure tt"J
implel:l!ent the cost and revenue allocc::tion prir.ciples set forth in
this Se.cond MOiJ. 'I'o the ~:"te.~t tr.at any such issue cannot be
agreed upon, the Cities agree that it 't<'i11 be submitted to
binding arbitration in accorda~ce with the Rules of Comwercial
Arbitration of the American Arbitraticn As_sociation. In
determining the matter ir. controver:sy, tbe arbitrator shall
follow the principles and policies for the allocation of costs
and revenues as otherw-jse apply under the provisions of this
Second MOLT and shall strive to i,lsure there is an equitable
allocation of benefits and burdens relative to the matter in
dispute.
10. The cities of Sur.nyvale and Mountain Viev.' agree to
deliver l or causa to be delivered, to the SMaRT station all
Recyclable Materials collected from residences by city employees,
the city's Designated Hauler, or other Persons operating under
contract ~ith the city.
11. The cities of Mc.untain Vie"w and Palo Alto shall be
exempt frotc. the effects cf any tax, levy. assessoent, or other
charge (collectively "Charges!l) not ir.cluc.ed or provided fo!"
under this Second MOU or rel~ted agreements executed by the
Cities 'IoIhich !Cay be in:posed by 5unrtj'"vale on the transport or
diGposal of solid waste to or at the SMaRT Station, if the effect
of such charge is to disprcportic11ately and inequitably burden
Palo Alto and Mour.tain View while shielding the City of Sunnyvale
from such charges.
1. This Second ~!OU will become effective if SunnyvalE-
rejects all proposals and elects :inste~d to construct the SMaRT
Station itself ~ In that case this. Second MOU ..... ill supers(>.de the
MOU.
2. If Sunnyvale accepts a propClsal, then this Second
MOti will of be no f~rther force or effect and the relationship
15n2.7 -11-1,/'-7/92
L
',' ":-."-.;~j~:~~-~;.!,~.
II
-
among the cities .. till be gove:::-ned by tbOS! MOU ard the First
Supplement t~ereto~
3. Whiche ..... -er CDurse is follo· ... ed, the Cities h~reby
reaffirm their cotnIl',it.":1~nt to the Kirby Ca:l},on Disposal Contracts
and to the constructi0n of the SMaR~ Statio~ by July 1, 1993. as
contemplated by the Disposal Contracts.
IN WITNESS i-I"HER:::QF, the: Cities ha\ic executed this Second MOU
as of the day and year fir-st above ·..;ri tten.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
B,"
Title: ____________ __
Attest: _____ .
City Clerk
Approved as to fort'):
City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By' __________ _
Title: _____ _
Attest:
'C~i~t~yC-C~l~e~r~ko--------
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
By: Tit'l"cc-:-----------
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
1)geZ_'
Date; ____ , 1992
Da te ~ _______________ , 1992
Date: _____________ , 1992
-22-.,._---
"4¢§,"'<l. ~"," ..... "", .. --
r '
~ , 0 r--.,
1 , EXHJBrT A I ,
~ UdT Of AI j OCA'T'jON QI j,o,}lTIJ::--C:: !NJ.005
SUNNYVALE l.4::llfNTAJN V!E'~'" PALO ALTO TOTA!...
:tEA9
'~S2 0 0 0 0
1993 • 82,";27 ".657 29 .• 80 '55.263
,994 159,076 75,885 59,168 294. '29
1;95 '53,794 76,_ 59,(72 ~9n, ,99E 150.589 77 ,3!!1 S7.1f.2 2SS,71~
,1m H7,2<9 78.309 ~S71 28'.529
'~118 '4.1.6<5 76,249 54.159 Z17.2S,1
"'99 1.o.m 53,488 52,304 2"'5,171
2000 136,StS 54,112 50.<06 241.36S
2001 135,513 54 •• SO so,912 2~C,9C5
2002 13e (36 54.SSC 501,(21 242. 707 = '37.365 55.22. S1,IiI35 244.52'
2004 138.:101 55,000 52,"SS 2"S,35Q
2005 139.24.1 55.980 52.979 24e.2'J2
2006 140.,9, 56.361 53._ 250.00,
2007 141,.,46 56.744 5<,OLI 251.934
2008 14.2..107 57,'30 54.585 2S3.E22
2!lQ9 1",3.015 57,51S 55.'30 255.723
2010 144,049 57,!109 55.682 ZS-',54Q
2011 ""'5.030 58.= 56.239 25$1.572
20'2 146,018 se,700 56,801 26't,519
2013 1<47.013 59,0!>9 57.3lI9 263.~'
201. '-4B,01-4 59.501 57.Kl 2ES,455
2015 ""9,022 59.905 58.522 267,0&4S
201~ 1SO,{)37 50.312 5.9,107 259,"56
2017 151,05S 80.= 59,698 2"71,480
20'8 1S2.0S7 5t,136 50295 V~,5'e
2019 153,123 61.551 5O,e9a 275.5':7
2020 '~,'6€ £1,91'0 6"1,507 277,~
2021 "6,'12 46,7S3 46,5.9'2 209.m
TOTAL 40,123,310 .,.,. .. 9,!33 1,566,:126 7.458,970
• As;:s;umes defrveries ~i!'\ Ju~ 1, '993.
-Assumes ClerlYeries end Sp.p1emoor 3D, 2021.
-
D:HlStT A
CW110N 1:R1I. (\P TO "lEN Y"...AAS)
.ws!~Of AllOC,lnON Ql !AA1JTJ~~ rN mN$
SUNNYIIA!.£ MOlJNi'IlJN VI:;W PAlO AL'tO TOTA!..
l:iWl
1 15$.2:H 6:<.39, 51,923 Z79,531
2 1S6.m 6:<.815 G2.~ 2B"'f~1
3 lS7.3S2 63,242 ~rro 2E~,34S • 'S8,402 63,sn $3,1117 2SS.m
5 'SP,47& 60\,10;; $3,SZ/ 281,212
6 160.56< 04.541 &01,000 289, Ie.;
7 151,6.56 54,sSO &01,495 291,131
a 162,755 ~.22 $4,934 .2.93,1'1'
P '5>,~ 5>,867 65.375 2SS.1C4
H) 164.91& 66,31. /;5,820 2$1,-;'"
··~L·-·.· ..
.,
I
~ I
I ,
I
I
SMaRT STATION
E%o i e c ted c a 1,;l..i~_~_J _______ Cos ts
(1992 Dollars)
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Project development expenses, i~cl~di~g bu~
not limited to: design, permit acquisition,
site il'!'.provement -,.,rock, rQad · .. ·idening ar:d
miscellaneous site informatic~, LFG ~odifications,
LFG monitoring, utility connections, and
construc~ion ~anage~ent.
Construction building (incl'J.ding rr::AC, plumbi!'",g
mechanical) foundation; receiving and r:3:ldling
building, and administrative builci~g.
-Equipment includi!"l.g mobile Ve:!1icles (in-plant use},
rolling stock (in-plant ~se), ~ood &nd yard ~aste
proceSSing, transfer haul tcuc~s, transfer haul
conta iners. rna terials r rniscell,~neou.s prcce S:;'~ilg,
drcp-off recycling contair:ers, sales tax, spar-a
parts, freight install, mixe~ waste processing,
office/tools supplies.
Peric:,rmance bo::-.d, start-up labor and uti li ties.
-contingency 10%
construction/Development Cost Total:
ETIiIBIf E
-
S 7,005,000
$ 9,205,000
$
$ 2,297,900
EXHIBIT C
SMaRT :STATION
REIMBURS1lBLE O'PERJI,TING ]\ND lQINTEN).NCE EXPI.NSES
1. All payments to third pa .... ti' under' operating contract~
2. costs associated \o'i th cont:-act rnan::lgement, oversight ~
inspectio:', and auditin?
II. It station is m_9..Pneratec1 by ~_IJ!m.V-ale Forces
All costs cf operation, incl'..lding GIn a~pr'opriate ~llocation
foi overhead, management and ad~inistration, allocable under
generally accepted accounting principles, including the
following:
2.
J.
4.
5.
L
Personnel costs, including: .... :ages, salaries, and
employee benefits; health, disability. workers
compensation and ~ccidental insurance (including self
insurance P':ly:::,.€:"1tS); sick and vacation pay; hiring and
training ccsts; payroll and other employment taxes,
payroll t'9.X serv ice, and enployee managett.ent and
administratio:n~
Vehicle and e.quipment acquisition, maintenance, repair
and replacement costs. including: financing and other
acquisition costs, d~preciation costs, fuel, utilities,
maintenance and repair cQntra~ts. spare parts, and
supplies .
.Regulatory costs relc:.ting to the c'-'I"-ership. cperation
or u~e of the SMaRT S~ation and all rel~ted vehicles
and eq:uip::"lent. including: licenses, pe'!:"n:tits, fees, in
1 ieu fees, ground'",'atet' r:,on i toril"lg or hazardous
materials investigation, response, remediation or
disposal costs, LFG monitoring aDd reroediation costs,
and any other regl~ 1 "'ltory control Jr:easures.
Adrninistrati ve and :!'."1anagement Eoxpenses, including!
supplies and ~aterials, equip~ent, service and repair,
outside support s'2rdces (e.g. printi!lg ana data
processing), mileage and ~eeting expenses, internal or
outside accounting I management. legal, engineering.
archi teet ural or other professional support services,
and other administrative overhead.
Other operational costs, including: facility
landscaping and naint€.naw::-c, traffic control and
road' .... ay maintenance, repair, and replacenent, dispos211
15982.7
-"
1"'-,
fees aOKirbY canyon and other disi;oroitior.
management ~tudies, laundry and cleaning.
costs,
The cities of Palo A.lto and J-lountain View recognize that the
city of Sunnyvale nay incur additional operating costs other
than those identified above. For such adrlitional costs I the
city of Sunn.1"Yale sh<!ll sub:T1it a revised "Exhibit en
identjfying the additional categories of cost for the
approval of tl-te oth;:: Cities. Such approval shall not be
unre.aGonably 'Withheld or delayed.
EXHIBIT C
i
I
~
---.. ':<~";<"':-'-
-.J" :>.>-,''':
llr·
SMaRT STATJO:-;
E_Him_~,CQ.mtructjQn ~t
(1992 Daliars)
CONSTRUCTION DEVEI~OPl\!ENT COSTS
Proj(".ct Development Expenses
Design
Permi~ Acquisition
General Site Wer\.:
a. Geologic Investigation
b. Geologic Condition Improvement
c. Preparation
d. Dewateri ng
-Sile Improvement Work (Already Specified)
ac Road Widening and Miscc Site Info
b. LFG Modlficatioru
c LFG Monitoring
Utility Connections
Construction Management
-Building (including HVAC. piumbing.
mechanical, etc,)
a. Receiving and Handling Building
b. Administration Building
-Equipment
a. Mobile vehicles (trl--plant U~)
b. Rolling stock (in-plant use)
c. W cod and Yard waste processing
d. Transfer haul trocks
L
-
40Q, 000
600,000
400,000
2,900,000
225,000
264,000
41),J,000
I Q()Q OOQ
6.189.000
6, 3i)). ooa
--.lQHoQO
7,005,000
400,000
655.00()
330,otl()
2.040,000
ATTACH\!ENT "8"
-..... --... _ .. ' ... , ..... "."~~ ..
o
S!\laRT STA 110:\
fu;!imal(>d C'.QJ'tstrl!ctjQo CQ~;I
(1992 Dollal's)
e. MaterhIs
f. Miscellaneous processing
g. Drop-off recycling containers
h, Sales tax
i. Spare parts .
MISCELLM'EOUS
-Perfcrmance Bond Costs
-Start-up labor and utilities
CODSlnK:tion Development Subtotal:
C anti agency J 0 %
Coostruc!ioniDevelop'Ileot Cost Total:
-----.
L
-
4.400,000
400,000
70,000
580,000
.._JJILOOO
9,205,DO()
80,000
500 OOQ
22,979,{)OO
2,297,900
25,274.900
I
-~-~ -, -----
S~IaRT ST,\ TIO\"
Eirsl-Y ea r ESf: m~Jf_lj __ .QP'_;_r.J.ti.!JL~-D_~!'_
lJul) I, 1992 1)011"",)
PERSON~mL
AdminisLrative (Number 8)
Operating (Number 82)
Maintenance (Numbe;r i5)
FACILITY !l1AINTE,,"Al', CE
Spare Parts
Contract Services
UtiHties
Fuel
Supplies
LF Gas Monitoring
EQl'lPt'>1El\! !llAL"lE;>; • .o\,;\"CE
Mixed Refuse Trans.fer Equipment Spare Parts
Materials Recovery Equipment Spare Parts
~,[iscellaneous Spare Parts
Equipment Replacement Fund
Vehicle Tax & License
liAl1LI:-;G OPER" 110,,"S
Refuse Hauling Spare Parts
Refuse Hauling Service and Supplies
Refuse Hauling F'Je1
INSURANCE
-Annual Fremiu:n Cost
L\'DIRECT OPERHI,'\G COSTS
~ Profit (15% Private)
ES11MATED TOTAL COST:
L
437,000
3,234,ono
819 roo
J,5JO,(W»)
80,000
60,000
200.000
62,ClOO
60.000
10000
472,000
50.000
315:JOO
65,000
792.000
_110,000
1.332,(100
200,000
85,000
J __ 8J.Dt-1O
46~,000
80Q,00Q
800.crJO
~1~11.~l('o()
1.142,000
8,754.0()O
L
AITACHJ\1El'.' "C'
-.1 ..