HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2013 MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
Municipal Services Committee
January 28, 2013 - 3:30 PM
Council Conference Room
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. January 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes*
III.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Animal Control Licensing Program (Hanson)
B. Shopping Cart Update (Bailey)
C. Auburn Golf Course Financial Review* (Coleman)
D. King County Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement* (Coleman)
E. Red Light Photo Enforcement* (Lee)
F. Animal Control (Lee)
G. Project Matrix*
IV.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 104
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
January 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Date:
January 23, 2013
Department:
Police
Attachments:
January 14, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:
Meeting Date:January 28, 2013 Item Number:CA.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 2 of 104
Municipal Services Committee
January 14, 2013 - 3:30 PM
Council Conference Room
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Peloza called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room of City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
A. Roll Call
Members present: Chair Bill Peloza, Vice Chair Wayne Osborne,
Member John Partridge.
Staff present: Councilmember Largo Wales, Chief of Police Bob Lee,
Public Works Director Dennis Dowdy, Parks, Arts and Recreation
Director Daryl Faber, Assistant City Attorney Steven Gross, Police
Records Manager Chris James and Police Secretary/Scribe Terry
Mendoza. Others present: Citizen Scot Pondelick.
B. Announcements
C. Agenda Modifications
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. December 10, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Osborne moved to accept the Minutes as presented.
Member Partridge seconded. Chair Peloza concurred.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
III. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Median Design and Maintenance Standards (Faber)
Parks, Arts and Recreation Director Daryl Faber updated the
committee on the draft City of Auburn Median Design & Maintenance
Guidelines dated January 2013. The goal for the guidelines is not to
replace design and maintenance standards, but to serve as an easy-
to-reference, supplementary guide that illustrates median design
options and maintenance practices in light of the City's existing
standards. The guidelines are a joint effort from City staff in the Public
Works/Engineering, Planning and Development, and Parks
Maintenance divisions. Each guideline is a component of design
Page 1 of 2
CA.A Page 3 of 104
and/or maintenance that needs to be addressed by the City or private
developer when improving current medians or constructing new
medians within the City. Committee discussion followed.
B. Ordinance No. 6448 (Heid)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington,
creating a new Chapter 2.87 of the Auburn City Code relating to the
acceptance of gifts and donations to the City. This proposed
ordinance was drafted to meet the ordinance requirement of RCW
35.21.100 which deals with the authority to accept and use donations.
Committee discussion followed.
C. Police Department Records Division (James)
Police Records Manager, Chris James, provided information to the
committee on the functions of the Records Division of the Auburn
Police Department. Manager James came to Auburn in September
2012 bringing with her 20+ years of Records experience in law
enforcement. Records is the support division of the
department. Some of their responsibilities include providing fronter
counter assistance, records case management and case entry, public
records requests from the City Clerk's office, evidence management,
firearms transfers, warrants, and concealed pistol licenses.
Committee discussion followed.
D. Project Matrix
The following updates were made to the Project Matrix:
Item 20P: Review date 1/28/13.
Item 30P: Review date 3/25/13. Status updated.
Item 7I: New Item of Interest added. Review date 2/11/13.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:26 p.m. The next meeting of the
Municipal Services Committee is Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. in
the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 25 W. Main Street, Auburn, WA.
Signed this _______________ day of January, 2013.
___________________ ________________________________
Bill Peloza, Chair Terry Mendoza, Police Secretary/Scribe
Page 2 of 2
CA.A Page 4 of 104
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Auburn Golf Course Financial Review
Date:
January 23, 2013
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Working Capital Report
Balance Sheet
Rounds Played
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Information only.
Background Summary:
For committee review and discussion.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:January 28, 2013 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 5 of 104
BUDGET
YEAR-TO-DATE
ACTUAL
VARIANCE TO
BUDGET
PERCENT OF
BUDGET
Green Fees 1,191,500 980,529 210,971 82.3%
Cart Rental 285,400 196,086 89,314 68.7%
Pro Shop Sales 187,700 140,981 46,719 75.1%
Restaurant 82,500 48,864 33,636 59.2%
Other 11,200 4,904 6,296 43.8%
Total Operating Revenue 1,758,300 1,371,364 386,936 78.0%
Salaries & Wages 560,350 563,130 (2,780) 100.5%
Benefits 293,540 269,592 23,948 91.8%
Supplies 271,870 266,179 5,691 97.9%
Other Service Charges 208,530 161,142 47,388 77.3%
Interfund Charges for Services 162,000 162,012 (12) 100.0%
Depreciation 341,000 312,871 28,129 91.8%
Total Operating Expenses 1,837,290 1,734,926 102,364 94.4%
Operating Income or Loss (78,990) (363,563) 284,573 460.3%
Miscellaneous Revenue 10,450 10,004 446 95.7%
Total Non-operating Revenues (Expenses)10,450 10,004 446 95.7%
Net Income or (Loss)(68,540) (353,558) 285,018 515.8%
Depreciation 341,000 312,871 28,129 91.8%
Total Items Not Effecting Working Capital 341,000 312,871 28,129 91.8%
Net Working Capital from Operations 272,460 (40,687) 313,147 -14.9%
Operating Transfers In 62,000 49,028 12,972 79.1%
Increase in Restricted Net Assets 56,800 - 56,800 0.0%
Total Resources Other Than Operations 118,800 49,028 69,772 41.3%
Net Change in Restricted Net Assets - (17,136) 17,136 0.0%
Total Uses Other Than Operations - (17,136) 17,136 0.0%
Net Change in Working Capital 391,260 25,478 365,782 6.5%
Working Capital, Beginning of Year 68,320 68,320 - 100.0%
Working Capital, End of Period 459,580 93,798 365,782 20.4%
Net Change in Working Capital 391,260 25,478 365,782 6.5%
* All figures are preliminary pending the year-end close of 2012 books.
City of Auburn
Working Capital Statement
Fund 437 - Golf Course
December 2012 *
DI.C Page 6 of 104
Cash and Cash Equivalents 486,307
Customer Accounts Receivable 9,214
Fixed Assets, Land 2,229,636
Fixed Assets, Building & Equipment 6,620,691
Fixed Assets, Improvements 3,023,053
Fixed Assets, Accumulated Depreciation (3,226,732)
9,142,167
Current Account Payables 53,216
Interfund Payables 350,000
Deferred Revenue 99,267
Employee Leave Benefits 61,272
563,755
Contributed Capital 2,278,692
Retained Earnings 6,299,721
8,578,412
9,142,167
* All figures are preliminary pending the year-end close of 2012 books.
City of Auburn
Balance Sheet
Fund 437 - Golf Course
As of December 31, 2012 *
DI.C Page 7 of 104
2010 2011 2012
January 1,721 701 1,125
February 2,532 1,545 1,687
March 3,191 2,183 1,939
April 3,937 3,215 3,920
May 5,085 4,887 5,545
June 5,681 6,956 5,873
July 7,767 8,058 7,531
August 7,216 7,612 7,447
September 4,630 5,179 5,716
October 3,225 2,805 2,503
November 1,235 1,321 1,546
December 919 1,506 872
Total 47,139 45,968 45,704
City of Auburn
Rounds Played
Fund 437 - Golf Course
December 31, 2012
DI.C Page 8 of 104
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
King County Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
Date:
January 24, 2013
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Non binding Statement
ILA Term Sheet
Map
FAQ
Redline comparison 1988 ILA
Amended ILA
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
No action required tonight. City Council to review and approve KC Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement by April 30, 2013.
Background Summary:
The King County Solid Waste system was formed in 1988 when cities signed the 1988
Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement (1988 ILA) for a 40-year term. Individual cities contract
or provide for collection of garbage and recycling, and the King County Solid Waste
Division (SWD) provides for the transfer, disposal and recycling services. In addition, the
SWD operates the transfer stations and the Cedar Hills landfill where the system's
garbage is disposed. System rates are developed by SWD staff and reviewed by a City
member advisory committee (the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory
Committee - MSWMAC), but final approval rests with the King County Council, which
acts as the utility board.
The County serves as the regional planning authority for solid waste, and as such, is
designated to prepare the County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
(Comprehensive Plan). The Comprehensive Plan provides the policy and vision for
management of the region's solid waste for the next twenty years, with a focus on the
next six years and contains policies and strategies for, among others, the transfer
system and landfill management and solid waste disposal. The SWD is in process of
updating the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002 (placed on hold during ILA
negotiations), which will continue in 2013.
In 2004, the County Council adopted Ordinance 14971, which amended the timing for
waste export planning and prioritized evaluation of the transfer station network as an
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 9 of 104
integral part of the waste export system plan. Projections at the time identified Cedar
Hills Landfill closing in 2012, which necessitated the need to plan for alternative disposal.
It also established a process for collaborative participation by the cities in solid waste
transfer and waste export system planning. This led to the formation of the cities
advisory group, MSWMAC, made up of the county and all cities party to the ILA.
That effort led to the passage of The 2007 Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export
System Plan (The Plan), which identified the future of the system, and called for the
existing transfer stations to be rebuilt and upgraded to allow for the future of waste
export to account for the planned closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. The current
Comprehensive Plan policy states that the SWD will contract for disposal through rail
transport when the Cedar Hills Landfill reaches capacity; however the draft
Comprehensive Plan calls for the consideration of other disposal or conversion
technologies such as waste-to-energy. The Plan also identified issues of governance
that needed to be addressed in any future amendment to the existing 1988 ILA, including
host city mitigation, dispute resolution, framework for developing financial policies, and
officially designating MSWMAC as the official advisory group in the ILA.
SWD has begun to implement The Plan, first opening the rebuilt Shoreline Transfer
Station in 2007, and more recently the Bow Lake Transfer Station in 2012. However, the
Bow Lake Transfer Station construction has been funded through short-term financing,
and the County is planning on issuing long-term bonds in April 2013. SWD and
MSWMAC began discussing the potential of amending the 1988 ILA in 2010 to
accommodate issuing longer term (20 year) bonds for construction of Bow Lake and the
remaining transfer stations. As the 1988 ILA expires in 2028, without an extension, bond
financing terms would be much shorter (15 years maximum), which requires a much
higher annual repayment cost.
SWD, county executive staff, and select city staff have been negotiating an agreement
for the past two years that provides an extension to account for at least 20-year bonds,
addresses governance issues, reflects changing environmental laws, mitigates liability
risks to all parties, and provides for a process to address the future system when the
Cedar Hills Landfill closes (projected presently to close in 2025).
In order to develop financial policies identified in the 2013 ILA that will affect the next rate
study, the County needs each City to act on the 2013 ILA by April 30, 2013.
DISCUSSION
The Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement (2013 ILA) provides
greater accountability, transparency, simplicity, and durability to address the long term
needs of the system.
There are a number of significant changes to the 2013 ILA, given that the previous
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 10 of 104
agreement was signed in 1988 when environmental laws were different, and was prior to
the formation of the SWD within King County. Prior to that point, the utility was operated
through the county's general fund and projects were funded through a combination of
rates and general fund revenues; the utility formation created the solid waste enterprise
fund where funds cannot be co-mingled with general funds.
The main reason to initially re-open the 1988 ILA was to provide sufficient time to bond
for construction of the transfer stations, as the County plans to issue revenue bonds
backed by utility rates. The County (and the SWD) requires signed ILA's at least equal to
the life of the bonds to satisfy the bond market with guaranteed revenue to repay the
bonds (through ratepayers). Since the agreement needed to be extended, MSWMAC
provided direction to consider the governance issues identified in The Plan (as noted in
above background information), and to confirm the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan
ratification process where MSWMAC provides input in advance of County Council action.
Additionally, as the proposed ILA will surpass useful life of Cedar Hills Landfill (projected
2025 closure), negotiations staff felt that the ILA needed to recognize the process and
timeline for deciding the future of the landfill. Through the negotiation process, additional
issues were identified that required updating or adding to the agreement such as Cedar
Hills rent, clarifying the use of system rates for grants, and liability provisions.
However, there are a number of components to the system that will not change. The
County Council still functions as the 'utility board' and makes the final decision on utility
rates. The County's general fund will continue to charge rent to the SWD for the Cedar
Hills Landfill, as the landfill is owned by the general fund but operated by the SWD. In
addition, the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan process remains the policy setting
document for solid waste issues (not the ILA), and the ratification process remains the
same for approving the comprehensive plan.
Below is a select list of the key terms of the 2013 ILA Term Sheet, and attached is a
Term Sheet which provides a synopsis of all items included with a brief description of the
recommended changes.
Select Key Improvements of 2013 ILA
Contract Term & Cedar Hills Landfill Closure
Contract Term - The 2013 ILA extends the agreement 12.5 years through December
2040, which allows for long-term financing of at least 20 years for each transfer station.
Cities were concerned about committing long-term (20 to 30 plus years) without knowing
the solution after Cedar Hills closes, as there are significant policy and financial
considerations that accompany that decision. The agreement strikes a balance between
not extending the agreement and realizing lower financing costs but significantly higher
rates in the short term (e.g. 15 years or less); and extending the agreement much longer
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 11 of 104
(e.g. 30 years), realizing lower rates but paying significantly more interest over time.
The ILA also includes the commitment by the County to implement The Plan, including
improvements to the transfer stations and that the County will primarily utilize long-term
bonds to finance those improvements.
Early Termination - The 2013 ILA doesn't allow for early termination, as the cost to an
individual city repaying its share of the transfer system upgrades is so expensive that no
city would choose to exercise this option.
Cedar Hills Landfill Closure - Instead, the ILA recognizes that whichever the option
identified through the Comprehensive Plan process for disposal post-Cedar Hills
(projected in 2025), a significant investment in infrastructure is required (e.g. intermodal
facility for rail transport or a waste-to-energy plant), and the ILA would need to be
extended at that time to finance those infrastructure investments. Planning for post
Cedar Hills would begin seven years prior to closure, through the Comprehensive Plan
review process which includes working with MSWAC and other parties on post-closure
solutions. Once the preferred option is established, the ILA would need to be extended to
provide the necessary bond term. If the ILA is not extended, the SWD is committed to
providing waste options (likely rail export) for the remainder of the contract.
Governance & Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan
MSWAC - The role of MSWAC is memorialized in the agreement as the Metropolitan
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC), including retaining its existing structure and
operations, which is stronger than its current existence in county code. MSWAC will offer
recommendations to the Executive, County Council, and other entities on issues relating
to solid waste such as the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan - the ILA confirms the current practice that the County
Council acts to approve the plan subject to ratification by cities, mirroring the existing
Countywide Planning Policies process. This includes utilizing the Comprehensive Plan
process to determine the post-closure solution for Cedar Hills Landfill.
Other Items
Grants - the ILA confirms that grants to cities are a permissible use of system revenues.
Mitigation - the ILA acknowledges that solid waste facilities are regional and that host
and neighboring cities may sustain impacts, for which there are three types of mitigation:
a) when new facilities are sited; b) operational mitigation for existing facilities (such as
litter control); and c) direct impacts, for which a city can charge the SWD.
Cedar Hills Landfill Rent - ILA acknowledges that rent will be charged by the county, and
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 12 of 104
clarifies how and when rent will be assessed.
Financial Policies - clarifies the county will develop financial policies, developed through
discussion with MSWAC.
Dispute Resolution - updates the dispute resolution process with provisions used in other
multi-party County ILAs.
Liability - the ILA provides that the mitigation of risk is a system cost, and should protect
all parties' respective general funds from environmental liability to the extent possible
(both the County and cities). Provides the requirement that the system 1) purchase
liability insurance, if feasible; 2) establish and maintain a reserve fund from disposal
rates to cover liability; and 3) designates the use of disposal rates, to the extent possible,
to cover system liability if necessary.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development, Public Works
Councilmember:Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:January 28, 2013 Item Number:DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 13 of 104
December 28, 2012
TO: The Honorable Pete Lewis, Mayor
City of Auburn
RE: Request for Non-Binding Statement of Interest in signing an Amended and Restated Solid
Waste Interlocal Agreement by January 31, 2013
We are requesting a non-binding statement from each City as to whether you are interested in
signing the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement. To accomplish this, we are
asking that a representative of the City complete the form below, indicating which option best
reflects the City’s position at this time, and email it to me by close of business January 31, 2013.
Again, this is non-binding, but will assist the County in planning.
Please respond by completing the information below:
City of Auburn Non-Binding Statement of Interest with Respect to Entering into the Amended
and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement.
It is likely that my City will sign the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement.
It is not likely that my City will sign the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal
Agreement.
My Name/Title: Date:
If you have any questions about the attached materials, please call or email me at 206-296-4385
or pat.mclaughlin@kingcounty.gov.
cc: Shelley Coleman, Finance Director, City of Auburn
Rich Wagner, Councilmember, City of Auburn
Bill Peloza, Councilmember, City of Auburn
Joan Nelson, Recycling Coordinator, City of Auburn
Deanna Dawson, Executive Director, Suburban Cities Association
Diane Carlson, Director of Regional Initiatives, King County Executive Office
Christie True, Director, Department of Natural Resources & Parks (DNRP)
Kevin Kiernan, Assistant Division Director, Solid Waste Division (SWD), DNRP
Diane Yates, Intergovernmental Liaison, SWD, DNRP
DI.D Page 14 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
King County Solid Waste Division Page 1 of 5 December 21, 2012
Accountability
Transparency
Durability: address long-term needs
Simplicity
Part I: Contract Term, Capital Financing, and Ability to Terminate Agreement in Advance
Contract Term ILA is extended 12.5 years, through December 2040.
As of June 2012, there would be 28.5 years remaining on the contract.
Bond Term
How long could the financing
term be for bonds funding
the Transfer Station
improvement plan?
20 to 28 years, depending on when each series of bonds to finance the transfer
station projects is issued.
Disposal Fees (tonnage
rates)
Significantly lower cost per ton is possible as compared to the “no extension” option
The longer the term, the higher the total price paid for the improvements (more
interest paid).
Negotiated ILA Extension An ILA extension is likely to be necessary at some point during the term of the
amended ILA in order to accommodate a cost-effective long-term disposal solution
after Cedar Hills closes.
The ILA will include language describing the parties’ intent to enter into negotiations
to extend the ILA before Cedar Hills closes, but after such time as the region has
made a decision on the long-term disposal option; that decision will require
amending the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP). The parties
could choose to begin the negotiations before ratification of the CSWMP
amendment is complete.
The amended ILA cannot compel either party to agree to a future extension of the
term.
If Cedar Hills closes on
schedule (2025), what
happens if the ILA is not
extended again?
The County would have to provide disposal at another location for 15 years (2025
through 2040). The City will continue to be part of the County system during that
time. This is a relatively short time period and as a result the assumption is that
costs would likely be considerably more expensive than disposal at Cedar Hills.
Early Termination
Will cities have the ability to
terminate the ILA early?
No.
If a city has the ability to terminate the ILA early, the County will, in exchange, need
to be able to recoup from that city, at a minimum, all the debt service costs
associated with the terminating city’s share of the transfer station system upgrades.
Not included because the cost of prepaying debt service for a city’s share of transfer
station system improvements is likely to be so expensive that no city would choose
DI.D Page 15 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
King County Solid Waste Division Page 2 of 5 December 21, 2012
to exercise this option. It would imply the city would prepay for a 50-year asset
after a few years, and, the terminating city would not be assured of having access to
the system assets after leaving.
What if some cities don’t
agree to extend the ILA?
Non-extending cities would be in a different customer class than extending cities.
Non-extending cities would be charged rates to ensure their portion of transfer
station debt is fully repaid by June 2028. As a result, their rates would be $7-$9 per
ton higher than for cities extending the ILA.
Part 2: Governance
Cities Advisory Committee
The Cities advisory committee (MSWMAC) is memorialized within the ILA as the
Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC). Its structure and
operations are no longer controlled by County Code. It has the same composition,
same rules as today:
Each city may appoint a delegate and alternates to MSWAC.
MSWAC retains its existing responsibilities.
MSWAC will elect a chair and vice-chair, and adopt its own bylaws.
MSWAC will be staffed by the County.
MSWAC remains an advisory body. It will coordinate with the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC) and provide advice to SWAC as it deems
appropriate. MSWAC will also provide recommendations to the County
Executive, County Council, and other entities.
The County agrees to consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and issues
from MSWAC, including but not limited to development of efficient and accountable
billing practices.
Regional Policy Committee
(RPC)
The role of the RPC is not affected by the amended and restated ILA. The RPC will
retain its current charter role in acting on Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan (CSWMP) amendments and financial policies. Its existing responsibilities as the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum will continue through the end of the current ILA in
June 2028. After 2028 those responsibilities will go to the RPC.
Part 3: Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Process
The CSWMP is reviewed and
amended as needed. Several
years before the Cedar Hills
Landfill closes, the CSWMP
will be amended to include
language defining the
regional disposal option.
The ILA will confirm current practice that the County Council acts to approve the
CSWMP subject to ratification, in the same way that Countywide Planning Policies
are now first approved by the County and then subject to ratification.
The County will act after seeking input from MSWAC, among others.
Once the County action is effective, the ratification period would run for 120 days.
DI.D Page 16 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
King County Solid Waste Division Page 3 of 5 December 21, 2012
Ratification Requirement
The current ILA requires that
jurisdictions representing
75% of the contract city
population must approve
CSWMP changes. The 75% is
determined based on those
cities taking a position.
The negotiating team considered modifying the ratification requirement. Because
of the difficulties of administering two different ratification processes if some cities
extend and others do not, the current process was left unchanged. It has been used
several times over the term of the agreement without significant problems.
Part 4: Other Issues
Parties Obligations to
Communicate
The parties will endeavor to notify each other in the event of the development of
any plan, contract, dispute, use of environmental liability funds or other solid waste
issue that could have potential significant impacts on the City and/or Cities, the
County and/or the regional solid waste system.
Emergency Planning The County and the cities will coordinate on the development of emergency plans
related to solid waste, including but not limited to debris management.
Grants The ILA will include a provision confirming that grants to cities in support of
programs that benefit the Solid Waste system are a permissible use of system
revenues.
Mitigation The ILA will acknowledge that solid waste facilities are regional facilities and host
cities and neighboring cities may sustain impacts for which there are three types of
mitigation:
1. When new facilities are sited, or existing facilities are reconstructed, mitigation
will be determined with advance input from host communities and neighboring
cities, and per state law. The County will collaborate with potential host cities
and neighboring cities in advance of both the environmental review and
permitting processes, including seeking advance input from such cities as to
potential impacts that should be addressed in scoping of environmental
studies/documents, or in developing permit applications.
2. With respect to existing facilities, the County will continue the full range of
operational mitigation activities required under law (odor and noise control,
maintenance, litter cleanup, etc.).
3. The ILA will recognize the rights of cities to charge the County for direct impacts
from operations consistent with State law (RCW 36.58.080). Cities that believe
they are entitled to such mitigation may request the County undertake technical
studies to determine the extent of such impacts; the County will undertake
analysis it determines is reasonable and appropriate. The costs of such studies
will be System costs. Dispute resolution would occur per the state statute
provision, rather than the ILA dispute resolution provisions.
Cities retain their full regulatory authority with respect to design, construction or
operation of facilities within their jurisdiction.
DI.D Page 17 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
King County Solid Waste Division Page 4 of 5 December 21, 2012
Cedar Hills Landfill Rent
The County began leasing the
Cedar Hills Landfill from the
state in 1960 at a time when
the solid waste function was
still part of County General
Fund operations. Throughout
the ‘60s, ‘70s and into the
‘80s, the solid waste system
was operated as part of the
General Fund through a mix
of County General Fund
monies and solid waste fees.
In 1983, the County formally
began the effort to transform
the solid waste system from
a General Fund operation to
a self-sustaining utility
enterprise, fully funded from
system revenues-- primarily
tipping fees charged at the
Cedar Hills Landfill. The
Landfill was acquired by the
General Fund from the state
in 1992 and remains a
General Fund asset. The
General Fund began charging
the Division for the use of
this asset in 2004.
The ILA will acknowledge that rent is charged to the Division for use of the Cedar
Hills Landfill, and clarify how the rent will be determined.
The County will continue to charge the Solid Waste System rent for use of the Cedar
Hills Landfill. The Landfill is a General Fund asset.
The ILA will ensure that Landfill rent will be based on third party professional
valuations using accepted MAI valuation principles. Cities will have input into the
selection of the appraiser and will have an opportunity to review and comment on
data inputs provided by the System to the appraiser for purposes of conducting the
appraisal.
The December 2011 appraisal setting the rent value for the period from 2013
through 2025 (the current estimated end of the Landfill’s useful life) will be adjusted
downward to ensure that the System is not charged for Landfill capacity that was
included and paid for by the System per the previous (2004) appraisal. The same
adjustment will be made with respect to any future appraisal.
The ILA will define a clear process by which the value of Cedar Hills to the Division,
and the associated rent, may be revalued during the Agreement, and will ensure
engagement of MSWAC in that process.
Rent costs are an operating cost to the Division that will be incorporated into solid
waste rates. MSWAC will have input on all rate proposals, as well as the specific
schedule of rent payments derived from the new appraisal.
The County will commit to not charge General Fund rent for any transfer station
property now in use, and will not charge General Fund rent for assets acquired in
the future solely from System revenues. Assets owned by other County funds (e.g.,
the Roads Division, or other funds) will be subject to rent (and vice versa). Any
revenue generated from System owned assets will be treated as revenues of the
System.
Financial Policies The County will develop financial policies to guide the Division’s operations and
investments. The policies will address debt issuance, cost containment, reserves,
asset ownership and use, and other financial issues. The policies will be developed
through discussion with MSWAC, RPC, the County Executive and the County Council.
Such policies will periodically be codified at the same time as CSWMP updates, but
may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the CSWMP update cycle.
Dispute Resolution The ILA will replace the current dispute resolution provisions involving State DOE
(State DOE is not willing to serve the role ascribed to it in the current ILA) with more
standard provisions, similar to those used in other multi-party County ILAs. In event
of a dispute, the first step will be for staff from the parties to meet. If the issue is
not resolved, then the City Manager/Administrator from the city(ies) and the
County Executive will meet. If the issue is still not resolved, non-binding mediation
may be pursued if any party so chooses, prior to pursuing formal legal action. All
cities will be notified of disputes at each step, and may join the dispute if they so
choose. Costs of mediation will be split, with the cities (all those participating in the
matter) paying half of the costs and the County paying half of the costs.
DI.D Page 18 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
ILA Term Sheet
King County Solid Waste Division Page 5 of 5 December 21, 2012
Liability SCA Principles as agreed to by Executive Constantine form the basis for the
Environmental Liability section. The County and the Cities agree that System-related
costs, including environmental liabilities, should be funded by System revenues
which include but are not limited to insurance proceeds, grants and rates. A
protocol for payment of liabilities if and when they arise is established including:
Insurance, if commercially available with cities as additional insured
Any reserves established for environmental liability shall survive for 30 years
after the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill.
Grants to the extent available
Developing a financial plan including a rate schedule in consultation with MSWAC
Specific language is included indicating it is the intent of the parties to protect their
general funds from Environmental Liabilities to the greatest extent feasible.
Severability Team agreed not to include a severability section. Effect is that in the event one
section of the contract is found to be invalid the Parties will need to meet to discuss
how to remedy the issue
Survivability No obligations of the agreement shall survive the expiration of the contract except
portions of the liability section including:
A three year obligation for tort related operational liability
Any insurance in effect at the end of the agreement shall continue for the
term of the policy
Reserve fund is retained for 30 years following Cedar Hills closure
Flow Control Language in Section 6.2 is simplified to state “The City shall cause to be delivered to
the County disposal system…” It does not specify what means the City shall use to
accomplish this.
County Commitment to
Transfer Station Plan
Section 6.1.g is amended to state “The County shall provide facilities and services
pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste
Transfer and Waste Management Plan as adopted…”
Long-Term Bonds Section 6.1.f includes “The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer system improvements.” This recognizes that in the past these
improvements have been partially funded by cash. This section also includes a
commitment to develop, through discussions with MSWAC, financial policies.
DI.D Page 19 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
System Map
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
DI.D Page 20 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Frequently Asked Questions
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
1. What is the timeframe for Cities to adopt the new ILA?
By mid-2014 the Solid Waste Division will propose rates for the 2015/16 rate period. Financial
policies developed in collaboration with the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee will
inform the rate study. To allow sufficient time to develop those policies and complete the rate
study, the County needs each City to act on the ILA by April 30, 2013.
2. What is the purpose of the non-binding statement of interest?
The County is asking each City to provide a non-binding statement of interest that indicates
likely participation in the new ILA by January 31, 2013. This information will be helpful to the
County as it moves forward with a variety of planning efforts, including updating the Draft
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
3. What are the capital project financing needs in 2013 and 2014?
Presently, the division has $75 million in Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) that will expire on
February 28, 2012. Those BANs will be converted to long-term bonds. Later in 2013, an
additional $13 million will be required for anticipated capital project expenditures. In 2014, it is
anticipated that $35 million will be needed.
4. How does City participation in the new ILA affect capital project financing?
Financing for transfer system capital improvements will be primarily by long-term bonds.
Ensuring adequate revenue to repay the bonds is critical and that revenue is directly dependent
on City participation in the system. If enough cities sign the extended ILA, the County will issue
bonds of 20 years or longer (out to 2040), which will mean lower per ton fees. Conversely, if
cities do not choose to extend the ILA, bonds will only be issued out to 2028, which will increase
rates. A mix of longer and shorter bonds may be possible if some cities extend the ILA and
others do not.
5. What are the implications for a City that chooses not to sign the new ILA?
Cities that choose to remain with the original ILA that expires in 2028 will pay rates that include
the additional amount needed to pay for the shorter bonds. The additional amount will be in
the range of $7 to $9 per ton. Cities that choose to remain with the original ILA will also not
receive the benefits of the new ILA, including those related to potential environmental liability.
6. How long do cities have to adopt the new ILA?
In order to move forward with development of financial policies that will inform the 2015/16
rate period and other planning efforts, the County needs each City by April 30, 2013 to decide
whether to sign the new ILA.
7. How would insurance coverage and liability reserves be established?
The insurance coverage and liability reserves provided for under the new ILA would be
established based on what is commercially available and determined appropriate in consultation
with the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWAC - note that the name of this
committee changes in the new ILA from the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory
Committee or MSWMAC).
DI.D Page 21 of 104
Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between King County and Cities
Frequently Asked Questions
King County Solid Waste Division December 21, 2012
8. Does this ILA lock Cities into the current Transfer System Plan?
No. In the new ILA the County commits to provide facilities and services pursuant to adopted
plans. The ILA also acknowledges that plans for transfer station improvements may be modified.
9. How does the ILA relate to the comprehensive solid waste management plan?
The ILA provides a framework for Cities and the County to work collaboratively to maintain and
update the comprehensive solid waste management plan and for adoption of the plan. Specific
policies, plans, and strategies are not included in the ILA.
10. What about disposal after Cedar Hills closes?
The ILA provides a framework for Cities and the County to plan for disposal post-Cedar Hills. At
least seven years before the date that the landfill is projected to close, the County will seek
advice and input from MSWAC and others on disposal alternatives.
11. Does the new ILA address Cedar Hills landfill rent?
The ILA establishes a clear process for rent for Cedar Hills, limiting when rental payments can be
changed, requiring a certified appraisal process be followed, and seeking review and comment
from the Cities. It clearly states that the solid waste system shall not pay rent to the general
fund for use of other county properties for transfer stations.
12. What if my City has more questions about this new ILA?
If you have any questions or would like to schedule a briefing, please call or email Pat
McLaughlin at 206-296-4385 or pat.mclaughlin@kingcounty.gov.
DI.D Page 22 of 104
- 1 -
AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered
into between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington and the City of
, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred
to as "County" and "City" respectively. This agreementCollectively, the County and the City are
referred to as the “Parties.” This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each
jurisdiction pursuant to formal action as designated below:
King County: Motion Ordinance No. __________
City: ________________________________________________
PREAMBLE
A. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Chapterchapter 39.34 RCW for the
purpose of extending, restating and amending the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
between the Parties originally entered into in ____ (the “Original Agreement”). The
Original Agreement provided for the cooperative management of solid wasteSolid Waste
in King County. It is the intent for a term of the parties to work forty (40) years, through
June 30, 2028. The Original Agreement is superseded by this Amended and Restated
Agreement, as of the effective date of this Agreement. This Amended and Restated
Agreement is effective for an additional twelve (12) years through December 31, 2040.
DI.D Page 23 of 104
- 2 -
B. The Parties intend to continue to cooperatively in establishing a solid waste management
plan manage Solid Waste and to work collaboratively to maintain and periodically update
the existing King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
(Comprehensive Plan) adopted pursuant to Chapterchapter 70.95 RCW and with
emphasis on .
The Parties continue to support the established priorities for solid waste management of waste
reduction, waste recycling, energy recovery or incineration, and landfilling. The parties
particularly support waste reduction and recycling and shall cooperate to achieve the goals
established by the comprehensive solid waste management plan.
C. The parties acknowledge their intentof Waste Prevention and Recycling as
incorporated in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and to meet or
surpass applicable environmental standards with regard to the solid waste system. Solid
Waste System.
D. The partiesCounty and the Cities agree that equivalentSystem-related costs, including
environmental liabilities, should be funded by System revenues which include but are not
limited to insurance proceeds, grants and rates;
E. The County, as the service provider, is in the best position to steward funds System
revenues that the County and the Cities intend to be available to pay for environmental
liabilities; and
F. The County and the Cities recognize that at the time this Agreement goes into effect, it is
impossible to know what the ultimate environmental liabilities could be; nevertheless, the
County and the Cities wish to designate in this Agreement a protocol for the designation
DI.D Page 24 of 104
- 3 -
and distribution of funding for potential future environmental liabilities in order to protect
the general funds of the County and the Cities.
G. The County began renting the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State of Washington in 1960
and began using it for Disposal of Solid Waste in 1964. The County acquired ownership
of the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State in 1992. The Cedar Hills Landfill remains an
asset owned by the County.
H. The Parties expect that the Cedar Hills Landfill will be at capacity and closed at some
date during the term of this Agreement, after which time all Solid Waste under this
Agreement will need to be disposed of through alternate means, as determined by the
Cities and the County through amendments to the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. The County currently estimates the useful life of the Cedar Hills
Landfill will extend through 2025. It is possible that this useful life could be extended, or
shortened, by System management decisions or factors beyond the control of the Parties.
I. The County intends to charge rent for the use of the Cedar Hills Landfill for so long as
the System uses this general fund asset and the Parties seek to clarify terms relative to the
calculation of the associated rent.
J. The County and Cities participating in the System have worked collaboratively for
several years to develop a plan for the replacement or upgrading of a series of transfer
stations. The Parties acknowledge that these transfer station improvements, as they may
be modified from time-to-time, will benefit Cities that are part of the System and the
County. The Parties have determined that the extension of the term of the Original
Agreement by twelve (12) years as accomplished by this Agreement is appropriate in
DI.D Page 25 of 104
- 4 -
order to facilitate the long-term financing of transfer station improvements and to
mitigate rate impacts of such financing.
A.K. The Parties have further determined that in order to equitably allocate the benefit
to all System Users from the transfer station improvements, different customer classes
should receive equivalent basic servicesmay be established by the County to ensure
System Users do not pay a disproportionate share of the cost of these improvements as a
result of a decision by a city not to extend the term of the Original Agreement.
L. The Parties have further determined it is appropriate to strengthen and formalize the
advisory role of the Cities regarding System operations.
The Parties agree as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
"Basic Services" “Cedar Hills Landfill” means services providedthe landfill owned and
operated by the County located in southeast King County Department of Natural Resources, .
“Cities” refers to all Cities that have signed an Amended and Restated Solid Waste
Division, including the management and handling of solid waste.Interlocal Agreement in
substantially identical form to this Agreement.
DI.D Page 26 of 104
- 5 -
"Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" or “Comprehensive Plan” means the
comprehensive planComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, as approved and amended
from time to time, for solid waste managementthe System, as required by RCWchapter
70.95.080 RCW.
"Designated Interlocal Forum" means a group formed pursuant to the Forum Interlocal
Agreement comprised of representatives of unincorporated King County designated by the King
County Council, representatives of the City of Seattle designated by the City of Seattle, and
representatives of other incorporated cities and towns-within King County that are signators to
the Forum Interlocal Agreement.
“County” means King County, a Charter County and political subdivision of the State of
Washington.
"Disposal" means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or incineration
of solid wasteSolid Waste but shall not include waste reductionWaste Prevention or waste
recyclingRecycling as defined herein.
"Diversion" “Disposal Rates” means the directing or permittingfee charged by the County to
System Users to cover all costs of the System consistent with this Agreement, all state, federal
and local laws governing solid waste and the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
"Divert" means to direct or permit the directing of solid wasteSolid Waste to
disposalDisposal sites other than the disposalDisposal site(s) designated by King County.
DI.D Page 27 of 104
- 6 -
"Energy/Resource Recovery" means "the recovery of energy in a usable form from mass
burning or refuse -derived fuel incineratorincineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the
heat of combustion of solid wasteSolid Waste that involves high temperature (above 1,200
degrees F) processing.".
(WACchapter 173-304-.350.100 WAC).
"Landfill" means "a disposalDisposal facility or part of a facility at which wasteSolid
Waste is placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility." (RCW 70.95.030).
“Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee” or “MSWAC” means the advisory
committee composed of city representatives, established pursuant to Section IX of this
Agreement.
"Moderate Risk Waste" means "(a) anywaste that is limited to conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste that exhibits any of the characteristics of and household hazardous
waste but is exempt from regulation under this as those terms are defined in chapter solely
because173-350 WAC, as amended.
“Original Agreement” means the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement first entered into by
and between the Parties, which is amended and restated by this Agreement. “Original
Agreements” means collectively all such agreements between Cities and the County in
substantially the same form as the Original Agreement.
DI.D Page 28 of 104
- 7 -
“Parties” means collectively the County and the City or Cities.
"Recycling" as defined in chapter 70.95.030 RCW, as amended, means transforming or
remanufacturing waste is generated in quantities below the thresholdmaterials into usable or
marketable materials for regulation and (b) any household wastes which are generated from the
disposaluse other than landfill Disposal or incineration.
“Regional Policy Committee” means the Regional Policy Committee created pursuant to
approval of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances." (RCW
70.105.010)the County voters in 1993, the composition and responsibilities of which are
prescribed in King County Charter Section 270 and chapter 1.24 King County Code, as they now
exist or hereafter may be amended.
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes,
including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, commercial waste,
sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and
contaminated soils and contaminated dredged materials, discarded commodities and recyclable
materials, but shall not include dangerous, hazardous, or extremely hazardous waste. as those
terms are defined in chapter 173-303 WAC, as amended; and shall further not include those
wastes excluded from the regulations established in chapter 173-350 WAC, more specifically
identified in Section 173-350-020 WAC.
DI.D Page 29 of 104
- 8 -
"System" means "Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "SWAC" means the inter-
disciplinary advisory forum or its successor created by the King County's system of solid
wasteCounty Code pursuant to chapter 70.95.165 RCW.
“System” includes King County’s Solid Waste facilities used to manage Solid Wastes
which includes but is not limited to transfer stations, rural and regionaldrop boxes, landfills,
recycling systems and facilities, energy/ and resource recovery, facilities and processing facilities
as authorized by RCWchapter 36.58.040, RCW and as established pursuant to the approved King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
"Waste Recycling" means "reusing waste materials and extracting valuable materials from a
waste stream." (RCW 70.95.030)
“System User” or “System Users” means Cities and any person utilizing the County’s
System for Solid Waste handling, Recycling or Disposal.
"Waste ReductionPrevention" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated but.
Waste Prevention shall not include reduction of already-generated waste through energy
recovery or incineration. "Landfill" means "a disposal facility or part of a facility at which waste
is placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility." (RCW 70.95.030).,
incineration, or otherwise.
II. PURPOSE
DI.D Page 30 of 104
- 9 -
The purpose of this Agreement is to foster transparency and cooperation between the
Parties and to establish the respective responsibilities of the partiesParties in a solid wasteSolid
Waste management system which includesSystem, including but is not limited to: , planning;
waste reduction; recycling; and disposal of mixed municipal solid waste, industrial waste,
demolition debris and all other waste defined as solid waste by RCW 70.95.030;, Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and moderate risk waste as defined in RCW 70.105.010Disposal. .
III. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective on as of ___________,
and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2028December 31, 2040.
DI.D Page 31 of 104
- 10 -
IV. APPROVAL
This Agreement shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for
its approval as to all matters within its jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be filed with the City
Clerk, and with the Clerk of the King County Council.
This Agreement will be approved and filed in accordance with chapter 39.34 RCW.
V. REVIEW AND RENEGOTIATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TERM OF AGREEMENT
5.1 Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of any provision of this
Agreement other than those specified in Section 5.2 below during the six-month period
immediately preceding July 1, 2003, which is the fifteenth anniversary of the effective date of
identical agreements executed by a majority of cities in King County with the County and during
the six-month period immediately preceding each succeeding fifth anniversary thereafter. Such
request must be in writing and must specify the provision(s) of the Agreement for which
review/renegotiation is requested. Review and/or renegotiation pursuant to such written request
shall be initiated within thirty days of said receipt.
5.2 Review and/or renegotiation shall not include the issues of system rates and charges,
waste stream control or diversion unless agreed by both parties.
5.3 In the event the parties are not able to mutually and satisfactorily resolve the issues
set forth in said request within six months from the date of receipt of said request, either party
may unilaterally request the Forum to review the issues presented and issue a written
recommendation within 90 days of receipt of said request by the Forum. Review of said request
shall be pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Interlocal Agreement creating the Forum and
pursuant to the Forum's bylaws. The written decision of the Forum shall be advisory to the
parties.
5.4 5.1 The Parties recognize that System Users benefit from long-term
Disposal arrangements, both in terms of predictability of System costs and operations, and the
likelihood that more cost competitive rates can be achieved with longer-term Disposal contracts
as compared to shorter-term contracts. To that end, at least seven (7) years before the date that
DI.D Page 32 of 104
- 11 -
the County projects that the Cedar Hills Landfill will close, or prior to the end of this Agreement,
whichever is sooner, the County will engage with MSWAC and the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, among others, to seek their advice and input on the Disposal alternatives to be used
after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, associated changes to the System, estimated costs
associated with the recommended Disposal alternatives, and amendments to the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan necessary to support these changes. Concurrently, the Parties will
meet to negotiate an extension of the term of the Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the
long-term Disposal of Solid Waste after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Nothing in this
Agreement shall require the Parties to reach agreement on an extension of the term of this
Agreement. If the Parties fail to reach agreement on an extension, the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section XIII do not apply, and this Agreement shall remain unchanged.
5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision in this paragraphAgreement to the contrary,
the partiesParties may, pursuant to mutual written agreement, modify or amend any provision of
this Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement.
DI.D Page 33 of 104
- 12 -
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATIONOBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
6.1 KING COUNTY King County
6.1.a. Management. KingThe County agrees to provide county-wide solid waste
Solid Waste management services, as specified in this Section, for wasteSolid Waste generated
and collected within jurisdictions party to this Agreement. the City, except waste eliminated
through Waste Prevention or waste recycling activities. The County agrees to dispose of or
designate disposalDisposal sites for all solid waste including moderate risk wasteSolid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City
which is delivered to King Countythe System in accordance with all applicable federal, state
Federal, State and local environmental health laws, rules, or regulations., as those laws are
described in Subsection 8.5.a. The County shall maintain records as necessary to fulfill
obligations under this Agreement.
6.1.b. Planning. KingThe County shall serve as the planning authority within
King County for solid waste including moderate risk wasteSolid Waste and Moderate Risk
Waste under this Agreement but shall not be responsible for planning for hazardous or dangerous
any other waste or have any other planning responsibility that is specifically designated by State
or Federal statuteunder this Agreement.
6.1.c. Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the
operating authority for transfer, processing and disposalDisposal facilities, including public
landfills, waste reduction or recycling and other facilities, and energy/resource recovery
facilitiesconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as closure and post-closure
responsibilities for landfills which are or were operated by Kingthe County.
DI.D Page 34 of 104
- 13 -
6.1.d. Collection Service. KingThe County shall not provide solid wasteSolid
Waste collection services within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and
agreed to by both partiesParties.
6.1.e. Support and Assistance. KingThe County shall provide support and
technical assistance to the City if the City seeks to establish consistent with the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan for a waste reductionWaste Prevention and recyclingRecycling
program compatible with the County waste reduction and recycling plan. . Such support may
include the award of grants to support programs with System benefits. The County shall develop
educational materials related to waste reductionWaste Prevention and recyclingRecycling and
strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the educational materials and will make these
available to the City for its use. Although the County will not be required to provide a particular
level of support or fund any City activities related to waste reductionWaste Prevention and
recycling, KingRecycling, the County intends to move forward aggressively to establish waste
reductionpromote Waste Prevention and recycling programsRecycling.
6.1.f. Forecast. The County shall develop wasteSolid Waste stream forecasts in
connection with System operations as part of the comprehensive planning process and assumes
all risks related to facility sizing based upon such forecasts.in accordance with Article XI.
DI.D Page 35 of 104
- 14 -
6.1.g. Facilities and Services. The County shall provide facilities and services
including waste reduction and recycling shall be provided pursuant to the comprehensive solid
wasteComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste
Management plan. All personal as adopted and real property acquired by King County for solid
waste management system purposesSolid Waste stream forecasts.
6.1.h Financial Policies. The County will maintain financial policies to guide
the System’s operations and investments. The policies shall be consistent with this Agreement
and shall address debt issuance, rate stabilization, cost containment, reserves, asset ownership
and use, and other financial issues. The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer System improvements. The policies shall be the property of King Countydeveloped
and/or revised through discussion with MSWAC, the Regional Policy Committee, the County
Executive and the County Council. Such policies shall be codified at the same time as the
Comprehensive Plan updates, but may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the
Comprehensive Plan process.
6.2 CITY City
6.2.a. Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other entity
as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for solid wasteSolid Waste
collection services provided within the City's corporate limits.
6.2.b. Disposal. The City shall by ordinance designate cause to be delivered to
the County disposal systemCounty’s System for the disposal ofDisposal all solid waste including
moderate risk wastesuch Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste which is authorized to be
delivered to the System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental
DI.D Page 36 of 104
- 15 -
health laws, rules or regulations and is generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of
the City and shall authorize the County to designate disposalDisposal sites for the
disposalDisposal of all solid waste including moderate risk wastesuch Solid Waste and Moderate
Risk Waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except for solid
wasteSolid Waste which is eliminated through waste reductionWaste Prevention or waste
recyclingRecycling activities consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
No solid wasteSolid Waste generated or collected within the City may be divertedDiverted from
the designated disposalDisposal sites without County approval.
6.3 JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES.
6.3.a Consistent with the Parties’ overall commitment to ongoing
communication and coordination, the Parties will endeavor to notify and coordinate with each
other on the development of any City or County plan, facility, contract, dispute, or other Solid
Waste issue that could have potential significant impacts on the County, the System, or the
City or Cities.
6.3.b The Parties, together with other Cities, will coordinate on the development
of emergency plans related to Solid Waste, including but not limited to debris management.
VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES
AND OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL; USE OF SYSTEM REVENUES
7.1 In establishing or amending disposal ratesDisposal Rates for system users, the
CountySystem Users, the County shall consult with MSWAC consistent with Section IX. The
County may adopt and amend by ordinance rates necessary to recover all costs of operationthe
DI.D Page 37 of 104
- 16 -
System including the but not limited to operations and maintenance, costs offor handling,
processing, disposal and Disposal of Solid Waste, siting, design and construction of facility
upgrades or new facilities, Recycling, education and mitigation, planning, Waste Prevention,
reserve funds, financing, defense and payment of claims, capital improvements, operational
improvements, and theinsurance, System liabilities including environmental releases, monitoring
and closure of landfills which are or were operated by King County. Kingthe County, property
acquisition, grants to cities, and administrative functions necessary to support the System and
Solid Waste handling services during emergencies as established by local, state and federal
agencies or for any other lawful solid waste purpose, and in accordance with chapter 43.09.210
RCW. Revenues from Disposal rates shall be used only for such purposes. The County shall
establish classes of servicecustomers for basic solid wasteSolid Waste management services and
by ordinance shall establish rates for usersclasses of each classcustomers.
DI.D Page 38 of 104
- 17 -
7.2. It is understood and agreed that System costs include payments to the County
general fund for Disposal of Solid Waste at the Cedar Hills Landfill calculated in accordance
with this Section 7.2, and that such rental payments shall be established based on use valuations
provided to the County by an independent-third party Member, Appraisal Institute (MAI)
certified appraiser selected by the County in consultation with MSWAC.
7.2.a A use valuation shall be prepared consistent with MAI accepted principles
for the purpose of quantifying the value to the System of the use of Cedar Hills Landfill for
Disposal of Solid Waste over a specified period of time (the valuation period). The County shall
establish a schedule of annual use charges for the System’s use of the Cedar Hills Landfill which
shall not exceed the most recent use valuation. Prior to establishing the schedule of annual use
charges, the County shall seek review and comment as to both the use valuation and the
proposed payment schedule from MSWAC. Upon request, the County will share with and
explain to MSWAC the information the appraiser requests for purposes of developing the
appraiser's recommendation.
7.2.b Use valuations and the underlying schedule of use charges shall be
updated if there are significant changes in Cedar Hills Landfill capacity as a result of opening
new Disposal areas and as determined by revisions to the existing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Site Development Plan; in that event, an updated appraisal will be performed in compliance with
MAI accepted principles. Otherwise, a reappraisal will not occur. Assuming a revision in the
schedule of use charges occurs based on a revised appraisal, the resulting use charges shall be
applied beginning in the subsequent rate period.
7.2.c The County general fund shall not charge use fees or receive other
consideration from the System for the System’s use of any transfer station property in use as of
DI.D Page 39 of 104
- 18 -
the effective date of this Agreement. The County further agrees that the County general fund
may not receive payments from the System for use of assets to the extent those assets are
acquired with System revenues. As required by chapter 43.09.210 RCW, the System’s use of
assets acquired with the use of other separate County funds (e.g., the Roads Fund, or other funds)
will be subject to use charges; similarly, the System will charge other County funds for use of
System property.
VIII. LIABILITY
8.1 Non-Environmental Liability Arising Out-of-County Operations. Except as
provided hereinin this Section, Sections 8.5 and 8.6, the County shall indemnify and hold
harmless the City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the County's
attorneys against any and all claims arising out of the County's operations during the term of this
Agreement and settle such claims, recognizingprovided that all fees, costs, and expenses incurred
by the County thereby are systemSystem costs which mustmay be satisfied from disposal
ratesDisposal Rates as provided in Section VII herein. In providing such defense of the City, the
County shall exercise good faith in such defense or settlement so as to protect the City's interest.
For purposes of this sectionSection "claims arising out of the county'sCounty's operations" shall
includemean claims arising out of the ownership, control, or maintenance of the systemSystem,
but shall not include claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in connection
with the systemSystem or other activities under the control of the City which may be incidental
to the County's operation. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to claims arising out of
the sole negligence or intentional acts of the City. The provisions of this Section shall survive for
DI.D Page 40 of 104
- 19 -
claims brought within three (3) years past the term of this Agreement established under Section
III.
8.2 If the County is not negligent, the City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the
County for any property damages or personal injury solely caused by the City's negligent failure
to comply with the provisions of Section 8.5.a.
8.3 Cooperation. In the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim under
Section 8.1, the City shall cooperate with the County. In the event the City acts to defend the
County, the County shall cooperate with the City.
8.4 8.3 Officers, Agents, and Employees. For purposes of this sectionSection
VIII, references to City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents
of either partyParty, acting within the scope of their authority. Transporters or generators of
waste who are not officers or employees of the City or County are not included as agents of the
City or County for purposes of this Section.
8.4 Each Party by mutual negotiation hereby waives, with respect to the other Party
only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial
Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
8.5 Unacceptable Waste
8.5.a. All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the
City which is delivered to the systemSystem for disposalDisposal shall be in compliance with the
resource conservationResource Conservation and recovery act, as amendedRecovery Act (42
U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.), RCW.) (RCRA), chapters 70.95 and 70.105 RCW, King County Code
Title 10, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8, the Solid Waste Division
operating rules, and all other applicable federal, stateFederal, State and local environmental
DI.D Page 41 of 104
- 20 -
health laws, rules or regulations. The that impose restrictions or requirements on the type of
waste that may be delivered to the System, as they now exist or are hereafter adopted or
amended.
8.5.b For purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to have
complied with the requirements of SectionSubsection 8.5.a. if it has adopted an ordinance
requiring solid waste delivered to the systemSystem for disposalDisposal to meet suchthe laws,
rules, or regulations and by written agreement has authorized King County to enforce
thesespecified in Subsection 8.5.a. However, nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve the
City from any obligation or liability it may have under the laws mentioned in Subsection 8.5.a
arising out of the City's actions other than adopting, enforcing, or requiring compliance with said
ordinance, such as liability, if any exists, of the City as a transporter or generator for improper
transport or Disposal of regulated dangerous waste. Any environmental liability the City may
have for releases of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances or wastes to the
environment is dealt with under Sections 8.6 and 8.7.
8.5.c The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County for any
property damages or personal injury caused solely by the City's failure to adopt an ordinance
under Subsection 8.5.b. In the event the City acts to defend the County under this Subsection, the
County shall cooperate with the City.
8.5.d The City shall make best efforts to include language in its contracts,
franchise agreements, or licenses for the collection of Solid Waste within the City that allow for
enforcement by the City against the collection contractor, franchisee or licensee for violations of
the laws, rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a. The requirements of this Subsection 8.5.d shall
DI.D Page 42 of 104
- 21 -
apply to the City's first collection contract, franchise, or license that becomes effective or is
amended after the effective date of this Agreement.
8.5.d.i If waste is delivered to the System in violation of the laws,
rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a, before requiring the City to take any action under
Subsection 8.5.d.ii, the County will make reasonable efforts to determine the parties’ responsible
for the violation and will work with those parties to correct the violation, consistent with
applicable waste clearance and acceptance rules, permit obligations, and any other legal
requirements.
8.5.d.ii If the violation is not corrected under Subsection 8.5.d.i and waste is determined
by the County to have been generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the City.
DI.D Page 43 of 104
- 22 -
8.5.b. The, the County shall provide the City with written notice of anythe
violation of this provision. . Upon such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the
violation and prevent similar future violations to the reasonable satisfaction of Kingthe County
which may include but not be limited to removing the waste and disposing of it in an approved
facility. ; provided that nothing in this Subsection 8.5.d.ii shall obligate the City to handle
regulated dangerous waste, as defined in WAC 173-351-200(1)(b)(i), and nothing in this
Subsection shall relieve the City of any obligation it may have apart from this Agreement to
handle regulated dangerous waste. If, in good faith, the City disagrees with the County regarding
the violation, such dispute shall be resolved between the partiesParties using the Dispute
Resolution process in Section XII or, if immediate action is required to avoid an imminent threat
to public health, safety or the environment, in King County Superior Court. Each partyParty
shall be responsible for its attorney'sown attorneys' fees and costs. Failure of the City to take the
steps requested by the County pending Superior Court resolution shall not be deemed a violation
of this agreementAgreement; provided, however, that this shall not release the City for damages
or loss to the County arising out of the failure to take such steps if the Court finds that thea City
violatedviolation of the requirements to comply with applicable laws set forth in this
sectionSubsection 8.5.a.
8.6 Environmental Liability.
8.6.a Neither the County nor the City is not heldholds harmless or
indemnifiedindemnifies the other with regard to any liability arising under
42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or pursuant to chapter 70.105D
RCW (MTCA) or as hereafter amended and any state legislation imposing liability for System-
DI.D Page 44 of 104
- 23 -
related cleanup of contaminated property, from the release of pollutants or hazardous or
dangerous substances. and/or damages resulting from property contaminated from the release of
pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances (“Environmental Liabilities”).
IX. FORUM
By entering into 8.6.b Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create new
Environmental Liability nor release any third-party from Environmental Liability. Rather, the
intent is to protect the general funds of the Parties to this Agreement by ensuring that, consistent
with best business practices, an adequate portion of Disposal Rates being collected from the
System Users are set aside and accessible in a fair and equitable manner to pay the respective
County and City agree to enter into and execute aCity’s Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.c The purpose of this Subsection is to establish a protocol for the setting
aside, and subsequent distribution of, Disposal Rates intended to pay for Environmental
Liabilities of the Parties, if and when such liabilities should arise, in order to safeguard the
Parties’ general funds. To do so, the County shall:
8.6.c.i Use Disposal Rates to obtain and maintain, to the extent
commercially available under reasonable terms, insurance coverage for System-related
Environmental Liability that names the City as an Additional Insured. The County shall establish
the adequacy, amount and availability of such insurance in consultation with MSWAC. Any
insurance policy in effect on the termination date of this Agreement with a term that extends past
the termination date shall be maintained until the end of the policy term.
8.6.c.ii Use Disposal Rates to establish and maintain a reserve fund to
DI.D Page 45 of 104
- 24 -
help pay the Parties’ Environmental Liabilities not already covered by System rates or insurance
maintained under Subsection 8.6.c.i above (“Environmental Reserve Fund”). The County shall
establish the adequacy of the Environmental Reserve Fund in consultation with MSWAC and
consistent with the financial policies described in Article VI. The County shall retain the
Environmental Reserve Fund for a minimum of 30 years following the closure of the Cedar Hills
Landfill (the “Retention Period”). During the Retention Period, the Environmental Reserve Fund
shall be used solely for the purposes for which it was established under this Agreement. Unless
otherwise required by law, at the end of the Retention Period, the County and Cities shall agree
as to the disbursement of any amounts remaining in the Environmental Reserve Fund. If unable
to agree, the County and City agree to submit disbursement to mediation and if unsuccessful to
binding arbitration in a manner similar to Section 39.34.180 RCW to the extent permitted by law.
8.6.c.iii Pursue state or federal grant funds, such as grants from the
Local Model Toxics Control Account under chapter 70.105D.070(3) RCW and chapter 173-322
WAC, or other state or federal funds as may be available and appropriate to pay for or remediate
such Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.d If the funds available under Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii are not adequate to
completely satisfy the Environmental Liabilities of the Parties to this Agreement then to the
extent feasible and permitted by law, the County will establish a financial plan including a rate
schedule to help pay for the County and City’s remaining Environmental Liabilities in
consultation with MSWAC.
8.6.e The County and the City shall act reasonably and quickly to utilize funds
collected or set aside through the means specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii and 8.6.d to conduct
or finance response or clean-up activities in order to limit the County and City’s exposure, or in
DI.D Page 46 of 104
- 25 -
order to comply with a consent decree, administrative or other legal order. The County shall
notify the City within 30 days of any use of the reserve fund established in 8.6.c.iii.
8.6.f In any federal or state regulatory proceeding, and in any action for
contribution, money expended by the County from the funds established in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d. to pay the costs of remedial investigation, cleanup, response or other action required
pursuant to a state or federal laws or regulations shall be considered by the Parties to have been
expended on behalf and for the benefit of the County and the Cities.
8.6.g In the event that the funds established as specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d are insufficient to cover the entirety of the County and Cities’ collective Environmental
Liabilities, the funds described therein shall be equitably allocated between the County and
Cities to satisfy their Environmental Liabilities. Factors to be considered in determining
“equitably allocated” may include the size of each Party’s System User base and the amount of
rates paid by that System User base into the funds, and the amount of the Solid Waste generated
by the Parties’ respective System Users. Neither the County nor the Cities shall receive a benefit
exceeding their Environmental Liabilities.
8.7 The County shall not charge or seek to recover from the City any costs or
expenses for which the County indemnified the State of Washington in Exhibit A to the
Quitclaim Deed from the State to the County for the Cedar Hills Landfill, dated February 24,
1993, to the extent such costs are not included in System costs.
IX. CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DI.D Page 47 of 104
- 26 -
9.1 There is hereby created an advisory committee comprised of representatives from
cities, which shall be known as the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (“MSWAC”).
The City may designate a representative and alternate(s) to serve on MSWAC. MSWAC shall
elect a chair and vice-chair and shall adopt bylaws to guide its deliberations. The members of
MSWAC shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing bodies and shall receive no compensation
from the County.
9.2 MSWAC is the forum through which the Parties together with other cities
participating in the System intend to discuss and seek to resolve System issues and concerns.
MSWAC shall assume the following advisory responsibilities:
9.2.a Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive, Solid Waste
Advisory Committee, and other jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of Solid Waste
management and planning;
9.2.b Consult with and advise the County on technical issues related to Solid
Waste management and planning;
9.2.c Assist in the development of alternatives and recommendations for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other plans governing the future of the
System, and facilitate a review and/or approval of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan by each jurisdiction;
9.2.d Assist in the development of proposed interlocal Agreements between
King County and cities for planning, Waste Prevention and Recycling, and waste stream control;
9.2.e Review and comment on Disposal Rate proposals and County financial
policies;
DI.D Page 48 of 104
- 27 -
9.2.f Review and comment on status reports on Waste Prevention, Recycling,
energy/resources recovery, and System operations with inter-jurisdictional impact;
9.2.g Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators,
cities, recyclers, and the County with respect to its planned and operated Disposal Systems;
9.2.h Provide coordination opportunities among the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, the Regional Policy Committee, the County, cities, private waste haulers, and
recyclers;
9.2.i Assist cities in recognizing municipal Solid Waste responsibilities,
including collection and Recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities; and
9.2.j Provide input on such disputes as MSWAC deems appropriate.
9.3 The County shall assume the following responsibilities with respect to MSWAC;
9.3.a The County shall provide staff support to MSWAC;
9.3.b In consultation with the chair of MSWAC, the County shall notify all
cities and their designated MSWAC representatives and alternates of the MSWAC meeting
times, locations and meeting agendas. Notification by electronic mail or regular mail shall meet
the requirements of this Subsection;
9.3.c The County will consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and
issues posed by MSWAC regarding the System, and will seek to resolve those issues in
collaboration with the Cities. Such issues shall include but are not limited to development of
efficient and accountable billing practices; and
9.3.d. The County shall provide all information and supporting documentation
and analyses as reasonably requested by MSWAC for MSWAC to perform the duties and
functions described in Section 9.2.
DI.D Page 49 of 104
- 28 -
X. FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
10.1 As of the effective date of this Agreement, the Forum Interlocal Agreement.
Such agreement shall provide for the establishment of a representative Forum for consideration
and/or determination of issues of policy regarding the term and conditions of this and Addendum
to Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal Agreement by and between the City
and County continue through June 30, 2028. After 2028 responsibilities assigned to the Forum
shall be assigned to the Regional Policy Committee. The Parties agree that Solid Waste System
policies and plans shall continue to be deemed regional countywide policies and plans that shall
be referred to the Regional Policy Committee for review consistent with King County Charter
Section 270.30 and chapter 1.24 King County Code.
XXI. COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1011.1 King County is designated to prepare the comprehensive solid waste
management planComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and this
plan shall include the City's Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan pursuant to
RCWchapter 70.95.080(3).) RCW.
DI.D Page 50 of 104
- 29 -
10 11.2 An initial comprehensive plan, which was prepared under the terms of this
Agreement as executed by a majority of cities in the County, was adopted in 1989 and approved
by the Department of Ecology in 1991. The plan Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed
and any necessary revisions proposed at least once every three years following the approval of
the Comprehensive Plan by the State Department of Ecology. . The County shall consult with
MSWAC to determine when revisions are necessary. King County shall provide services and
build facilities in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
1011.3 The Comprehensive Plans will promote waste reductionWaste Prevention
and recyclingRecycling in accordance with Washington State solid wasteSolid Waste
management priorities pursuant to Chapterchapter 70.95 RCW, at a minimum.
1011.4 The Comprehensive solid waste management plansPlans will be prepared
in accordance with Chapterchapter 70.95 RCW and solid wasteSolid Waste planning guidelines
developed by the Department of Ecology. The plan shall include, but not be limited to:
10 11.4.a. Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and
facilities required for handling all waste types;
10 11.4.b. Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
10 11.4.c. Policies concerning waste reduction, recycling, energyRecycling,
Energy and resource recoveryResource Recovery, collection, transfer, long-haul transport,
disposalDisposal, enforcement and administration; and
10 11.4.d. Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item c above.
10..11.5 The cost of preparation by King County of the Comprehensive Plan will
be considered a cost of the systemSystem and financed out of the rate base.
DI.D Page 51 of 104
- 30 -
1011.6 The Comprehensive Plans will be “adopted” within the meaning of this
Agreement when the following has occurred:
10 11.6.a. The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council;
and
10 11.6.b. The Comprehensive Plan is approved by Citiescities representing
three-quarters of the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties to
the Forum Interlocal Agreement. In calculating the three-quarters, the calculations shall consider
only those incorporated jurisdictions taking formal action to approve or disapprove the
Comprehensive Plan within 120 days of receipt of the Plan. The 120-day time period shall begin
to run from receipt by an incorporated jurisdiction of the Forum's recommendation on the
Comprehensive Plan, or, if the Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the
Comprehensive Plan from the Forum without recommendation.
10 11.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council,
but not receive approval of three-quarters of the Citiescities acting on the Comprehensive Plan,
and should King County and the Citiescities be unable to resolve their disagreement, then the
Comprehensive Plan shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and the State
Department of Ecology will resolve any disputes regarding Comprehensive Plan adoption and
adequacy by approving or disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or any part thereof.
1011.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If any City disagrees with such determination, then the
City can request that the Forum determine whether or not the City is affected. Such
DI.D Page 52 of 104
- 31 -
determination shall be made by a two-thirds majority vote of all representative members of the
Forum.
1011.9 Should King County and the affected jurisdictions be unable to agree on
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed amendments shall be referred to the
Department of Ecology to resolve any disputes regarding such amendments.
11.10.10 Should there be any impasse between the partiesParties regarding
Comprehensive Plan adoption, adequacy, or consistency or inconsistency or whether any permits
or programs adopted or proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the
Department of Ecology shall resolve said disputes.
XI
XII. MITIGATION
12.1 The County will design, construct and operate Solid Waste facilities in a manner
to mitigate their impact on host Cities and neighboring communities pursuant to applicable law
and regulations.
12.2 The Parties recognize that Solid Waste facilities are regional facilities. The
County further recognizes that host Cities and neighboring communities may sustain impacts
which can include but are not limited to local infrastructure, odor, traffic into and out of Solid
Waste facilities, noise and litter.
12.3 Collaboration in Environmental Review. In the event the County is the sole or co-
Lead Agency, then prior to making a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), the County will provide a copy of the SEPA environmental checklist, if any,
and proposed SEPA threshold determination to any identifiable Host City (as defined below) and
DI.D Page 53 of 104
- 32 -
adjacent or neighboring city that is signatory to the Agreement and that may be affected by the
project ("Neighboring City") and seek their input. For any facility for which the County prepares
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the County will meet with any identified potential
Host City (as defined below) and any Neighboring City to seek input on the scope of the EIS and
appropriate methodologies and assumptions in preparing the analyses supporting the EIS.
However, nothing in this Section shall limit or impair the County's ability to timely complete the
environmental review process.
12.4 Collaboration in Project Permitting. If a new or reconstructed Solid Waste facility
is proposed to be built within the boundaries of the City ("Host City") and the project requires
one or more "project permits" as defined in chapter 36.70B.020(4) RCW from the Host City,
before submitting its first application for any of the project permits, the County will meet with
the Host City and any Neighboring City, to seek input. However, nothing in this Section shall
limit or impair the County's ability to timely submit applications for or receive permits, nor
waive any permit processing or appeal timelines.
12.5 Separately, the County and the City recognize that in accordance with 36.58.080
RCW, a city is authorized to charge the County to mitigate impacts directly attributable to a
County-owned Solid Waste facility. The County acknowledges that such direct costs include
wear and tear on infrastructure including roads. To the extent that the City establishes that such
charges are reasonably necessary to mitigate such impacts, payments to cover such impacts may
only be expended only to mitigate such impacts and are System costs. If the City believes that it
is entitled to mitigation under this Agreement, the City may request that the County undertake a
technical analysis regarding the extent of impacts authorized for mitigation . Upon receiving such
a request, the County, in coordination with the City and any necessary technical consultants, will
DI.D Page 54 of 104
- 33 -
develop any analysis that is reasonable and appropriate to identify impacts. The cost for such
analysis is a System cost. The City and County will work cooperatively to determine the
appropriate mitigation payments and will document any agreement in a Memorandum of
Agreement. If the City and the County cannot agree on mitigation payments, the dispute
resolution process under chapter 36.58.080 RCW will apply rather than the dispute resolution
process under Section XII of the Agreement.
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 Unless otherwise expressly stated, the terms of this Section XIII shall apply to
disputes arising under this Agreement.
13.2 Initial Meeting.
13.2.a Either Party shall give notice to the other in writing of a dispute involving
this Agreement.
13.2.b Within ten (10) business days of receiving or issuing such notice, the
County shall send an email notice to all Cities.
13.2.c Within ten (10) business days of receiving the County’s notice under
Subsection 13.2.b, a City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to participate in
the Dispute Resolution process.
13.2.d Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the initial notice of dispute issued under Subsection 13.2.a, the County shall
schedule a time for staff from the County and any City requesting to participate in the dispute
resolution process ("Participating City") to meet (the “initial meeting”). The County shall
DI.D Page 55 of 104
- 34 -
endeavor to set such initial meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities and to
the County.
13.3 Executives' Meeting.
13.3.a If the dispute is not resolved within sixty (60) days of the initial meeting,
then within seven (7) days of expiration of the sixty (60)-day period, the County shall send an
email notice to all Participating Cities that the dispute was not resolved and that a meeting of the
County Executive, or his/her designee and the chief executive officer(s) of each Participating
City, or the designees of each Participating City (an “executives' meeting”) shall be scheduled to
attempt to resolve the dispute. It is provided, however, that the County and the Participating
Cities may mutually agree to extend the sixty (60)-day period for an additional fifteen (15) days
if they believe further progress may be made in resolving the dispute, in which case, the
County’s obligation to send its email notice to the Participating Cities under this Subsection that
the dispute was not resolved shall be within seven (7) days of the end of the extension. Likewise,
the County and the Participating Cities may mutually conclude prior to the expiration of the sixty
(60)-day period that further progress is not likely in resolving the dispute at this level, in which
case, the County shall send its email notice that the dispute was not resolved within seven (7)
days of the date that the County and the Participating Cities mutually concluded that further
progress is not likely in resolving the dispute.
13.3.b Within seven (7) days of receiving the County’s notice under Subsection
13.3.a each Participating City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to
participate in the executives' meeting.
13.3.c Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the notice of the executives' meeting issued under Subsection 13.3.a, the County
DI.D Page 56 of 104
- 35 -
shall schedule a time for the executives' meeting. The County shall endeavor to set such
executives' meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities that provided notice
under Subsection 13.3.b and to the County.
13.4. Non-Binding Mediation.
13.4.a If the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days of the executives'
meeting, then any Participating City that was Party to the executives' meeting or the County may
refer the matter to non-binding meditation by sending written notice within thirty-five (35) days
of the initial executives' meeting to all Parties to such meeting.
13.4.b Within seven (7) days of receiving or issuing notice that a matter will be
referred to non-binding mediation, the County shall send an email notice to all Participating
Cities that provided notice under Subsection 13.3.b informing them of the referral.
13.4.c Within seven (7) days of receiving the County’s notice under Subsection
13.4.b, each Participating City shall notify the County in writing if it wishes to participate in the
non-binding mediation.
13.4.d The mediator will be selected in the following manner: The City(ies)
electing to participate in the mediation shall propose a mediator and the County shall propose a
mediator; in the event the mediators are not the same person, the two mediators shall select a
third mediator who shall mediate the dispute. Alternately, the City(ies) participating in the
mediation and the County may agree to select a mediator through a mediation service mutually
acceptable to the Parties. The Parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by
the mediator or mediation service. For purposes of allocating costs of the mediator or mediation
service, all Cities participating in the mediation will be considered one Party.
DI.D Page 57 of 104
- 36 -
13.5 Superior Court. Any Party, after participating in the non-binding mediation, may
commence an action in King County Superior Court after one hundred eighty (180) days from
the commencement of the mediation, in order to resolve an issue that has not by then been
resolved through non-binding mediation, unless all Parties to the mediation agree to an earlier
date for ending the mediation.
13.6 Unless this Section XIII does not apply to a dispute, then the Parties agree that
they may not seek relief under this Agreement in a court of law or equity unless and until each of
the procedural steps set forth in this Section XIII have been exhausted, provided, that if any
applicable statute of limitations will or may run during the time that may be required to exhaust
the procedural steps in this Section XIII, a Party may file suit to preserve a cause of action while
the Dispute Resolution process continues. The Parties agree that, if necessary and if allowed by
the court, they will seek a stay of any such suit while the Dispute Resolution process is
completed. If the dispute is resolved through the Dispute Resolution process, the Parties agree to
dismiss the lawsuit, including all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims, with prejudice and
without costs to any Party.
XIV. FORCE MAJEURE
The partiesParties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond the control of
either party to this AgreementParty (“force majeure”). The term “force majeure” shall include,
without limitation by the following enumeration: acts of nature, acts of civil or military
authorities, terrorism, fire, accidents, shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, industrial,
civil or public disturbances, or labor disputes, causing the inability to perform the requirements
DI.D Page 58 of 104
- 37 -
of this Agreement, if either Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event
to perform or comply with any obligation or condition of this Agreement, upon giving notice and
reasonably full particulars to the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended
only for the time and to the extent practicable to restore normal operations.
XIIXV. MERGER
This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representation and/or
agreements between the partiesParties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and
constitutes the entire contract between the parties except with regard to the provisions of the
Forum Interlocal AgreementParties [except with regard to the provisions of the Forum Interlocal
Agreement]; provided that nothing in Section XV supersedes or amends any indemnification
obligation that may be in effect pursuant to a contract between the Parties other than the Original
Agreement; and further provided that nothing in this Agreement supersedes, amends or modifies
in any way any permit or approval applicable to the System or the County’s operation of the
System within the jurisdiction of the City.
X111XVI. WAIVER
No waiver by either partyParty of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be
deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of any subsequent
breach whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
XIVXVII. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
DI.D Page 59 of 104
- 38 -
This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or
person except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be
entitled to be treated as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement.
XV. SEVERABILITY
If anyentitled to be treated as a third-party beneficiary of the provisions contained in this
Agreement.
XVIII. SURVIVABILITY
Except as provided in Section 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, Section 8.6.c, except 8.6.ciii and Section 8.6d,
no obligations in this Agreement survive past the expiration date as established in Section III.
XIX. NOTICE
are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable,Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, a notice required to be provided under the remaining provisionsterms of this
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.be delivered by certified mail, return receipt
requested or by personal service to the following person:
XVI. For the City:
DI.D Page 60 of 104
- 40 -
For the County:
Director
King County Solid Waste Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, Washington 98104
NOTICE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each partyParty
on the date set forth below:
CITY of KING COUNTY
(Mayor /City Manager) King County Executive
Date Date
Pursuant to Resolution No. _________ Pursuant to Motion No. _________
Clerk-Attest Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
DI.D Page 61 of 104
- 41 -
Date Date
s:\ila\orig-ila.doc
DI.D Page 62 of 104
- 1 -
AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered
into between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington and the City of
, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred
to as "County" and "City" respectively. Collectively, the County and the City are referred to as
the “Parties.” This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction
pursuant to formal action as designated below:
King County: Ordinance No. __________
City: ________________________________________________
PREAMBLE
A. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of
extending, restating and amending the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement between the
Parties originally entered into in ____ (the “Original Agreement”). The Original
Agreement provided for the cooperative management of Solid Waste in King County for
a term of forty (40) years, through June 30, 2028. The Original Agreement is superseded
by this Amended and Restated Agreement, as of the effective date of this Agreement.
This Amended and Restated Agreement is effective for an additional twelve (12) years
through December 31, 2040.
B. The Parties intend to continue to cooperatively manage Solid Waste and to work
collaboratively to maintain and periodically update the existing King County
DI.D Page 63 of 104
- 2 -
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) adopted pursuant
to chapter 70.95 RCW.
C. The Parties continue to support the established goals of Waste Prevention and Recycling
as incorporated in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and to meet or
surpass applicable environmental standards with regard to the Solid Waste System.
D. The County and the Cities agree that System-related costs, including environmental
liabilities, should be funded by System revenues which include but are not limited to
insurance proceeds, grants and rates;
E. The County, as the service provider, is in the best position to steward funds System
revenues that the County and the Cities intend to be available to pay for environmental
liabilities; and
F. The County and the Cities recognize that at the time this Agreement goes into effect, it is
impossible to know what the ultimate environmental liabilities could be; nevertheless, the
County and the Cities wish to designate in this Agreement a protocol for the designation
and distribution of funding for potential future environmental liabilities in order to protect
the general funds of the County and the Cities.
G. The County began renting the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State of Washington in 1960
and began using it for Disposal of Solid Waste in 1964. The County acquired ownership
of the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State in 1992. The Cedar Hills Landfill remains an
asset owned by the County.
H. The Parties expect that the Cedar Hills Landfill will be at capacity and closed at some
date during the term of this Agreement, after which time all Solid Waste under this
Agreement will need to be disposed of through alternate means, as determined by the
DI.D Page 64 of 104
- 3 -
Cities and the County through amendments to the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. The County currently estimates the useful life of the Cedar Hills
Landfill will extend through 2025. It is possible that this useful life could be extended, or
shortened, by System management decisions or factors beyond the control of the Parties.
I. The County intends to charge rent for the use of the Cedar Hills Landfill for so long as
the System uses this general fund asset and the Parties seek to clarify terms relative to the
calculation of the associated rent.
J. The County and Cities participating in the System have worked collaboratively for
several years to develop a plan for the replacement or upgrading of a series of transfer
stations. The Parties acknowledge that these transfer station improvements, as they may
be modified from time-to-time, will benefit Cities that are part of the System and the
County. The Parties have determined that the extension of the term of the Original
Agreement by twelve (12) years as accomplished by this Agreement is appropriate in
order to facilitate the long-term financing of transfer station improvements and to
mitigate rate impacts of such financing.
K. The Parties have further determined that in order to equitably allocate the benefit to all
System Users from the transfer station improvements, different customer classes may be
established by the County to ensure System Users do not pay a disproportionate share of
the cost of these improvements as a result of a decision by a city not to extend the term of
the Original Agreement.
L. The Parties have further determined it is appropriate to strengthen and formalize the
advisory role of the Cities regarding System operations.
DI.D Page 65 of 104
- 4 -
The Parties agree as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
“Cedar Hills Landfill” means the landfill owned and operated by the County located in
southeast King County.
“Cities” refers to all Cities that have signed an Amended and Restated Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement in substantially identical form to this Agreement.
"Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" or “Comprehensive Plan” means the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, as approved and amended from time to time, for
the System, as required by chapter 70.95.080 RCW.
“County” means King County, a Charter County and political subdivision of the State of
Washington.
"Disposal" means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or incineration
of Solid Waste but shall not include Waste Prevention or Recycling as defined herein.
DI.D Page 66 of 104
- 5 -
“Disposal Rates” means the fee charged by the County to System Users to cover all costs
of the System consistent with this Agreement, all state, federal and local laws governing solid
waste and the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
"Divert" means to direct or permit the directing of Solid Waste to Disposal sites other
than the Disposal site(s) designated by King County.
"Energy/Resource Recovery" means the recovery of energy in a usable form from mass
burning or refuse-derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the heat of
combustion of Solid Waste that involves high temperature (above 1,200 degrees F) processing.
(chapter 173.350.100 WAC).
"Landfill" means a Disposal facility or part of a facility at which Solid Waste is placed in
or on land and which is not a land treatment facility.
“Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee” or “MSWAC” means the advisory
committee composed of city representatives, established pursuant to Section IX of this
Agreement.
"Moderate Risk Waste" means waste that is limited to conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste and household hazardous waste as those terms are defined in chapter
173-350 WAC, as amended.
DI.D Page 67 of 104
- 6 -
“Original Agreement” means the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement first entered into by
and between the Parties, which is amended and restated by this Agreement. “Original
Agreements” means collectively all such agreements between Cities and the County in
substantially the same form as the Original Agreement.
“Parties” means collectively the County and the City or Cities.
"Recycling" as defined in chapter 70.95.030 RCW, as amended, means transforming or
remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill
Disposal or incineration.
“Regional Policy Committee” means the Regional Policy Committee created pursuant to
approval of the County voters in 1993, the composition and responsibilities of which are
prescribed in King County Charter Section 270 and chapter 1.24 King County Code, as they now
exist or hereafter may be amended.
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes
including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, commercial waste,
sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
contaminated soils and contaminated dredged materials, discarded commodities and recyclable
materials, but shall not include dangerous, hazardous, or extremely hazardous waste as those
terms are defined in chapter 173-303 WAC, as amended; and shall further not include those
DI.D Page 68 of 104
- 7 -
wastes excluded from the regulations established in chapter 173-350 WAC, more specifically
identified in Section 173-350-020 WAC.
"Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "SWAC" means the inter-disciplinary advisory
forum or its successor created by the King County Code pursuant to chapter 70.95.165 RCW.
“System” includes King County’s Solid Waste facilities used to manage Solid Wastes
which includes but is not limited to transfer stations, drop boxes, landfills, recycling systems and
facilities, energy and resource recovery facilities and processing facilities as authorized by
chapter 36.58.040 RCW and as established pursuant to the approved King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
“System User” or “System Users” means Cities and any person utilizing the County’s
System for Solid Waste handling, Recycling or Disposal.
"Waste Prevention" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. Waste
Prevention shall not include reduction of already-generated waste through energy recovery,
incineration, or otherwise.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to foster transparency and cooperation between the
Parties and to establish the respective responsibilities of the Parties in a Solid Waste management
System, including but not limited to, planning, Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Disposal. .
DI.D Page 69 of 104
- 8 -
III. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective as of ___________, and shall remain in effect
through December 31, 2040.
IV. APPROVAL
This Agreement will be approved and filed in accordance with chapter 39.34 RCW.
V. RENEGOTIATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TERM OF AGREEMENT
5.1 The Parties recognize that System Users benefit from long-term Disposal
arrangements, both in terms of predictability of System costs and operations, and the likelihood
that more cost competitive rates can be achieved with longer-term Disposal contracts as
compared to shorter-term contracts. To that end, at least seven (7) years before the date that the
County projects that the Cedar Hills Landfill will close, or prior to the end of this Agreement,
whichever is sooner, the County will engage with MSWAC and the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, among others, to seek their advice and input on the Disposal alternatives to be used
after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, associated changes to the System, estimated costs
associated with the recommended Disposal alternatives, and amendments to the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan necessary to support these changes. Concurrently, the Parties will
meet to negotiate an extension of the term of the Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the
long-term Disposal of Solid Waste after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Nothing in this
Agreement shall require the Parties to reach agreement on an extension of the term of this
Agreement. If the Parties fail to reach agreement on an extension, the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section XIII do not apply, and this Agreement shall remain unchanged.
DI.D Page 70 of 104
- 9 -
5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Parties may, pursuant to mutual written agreement, modify or amend any provision of this
Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement.
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
6.1 King County
6.1.a Management. The County agrees to provide Solid Waste management
services, as specified in this Section, for Solid Waste generated and collected within the City,
except waste eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste recycling activities. The County
agrees to dispose of or designate Disposal sites for all Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste
generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the
System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules, or regulations, as those laws are described in Subsection 8.5.a. The County shall maintain
records as necessary to fulfill obligations under this Agreement.
6.1.b Planning. The County shall serve as the planning authority for Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste under this Agreement but shall not be responsible for planning for any
other waste or have any other planning responsibility under this Agreement.
6.1.c Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the
operating authority for transfer, processing and Disposal facilities, including public landfills and
other facilities, consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as closure and post-
closure responsibilities for landfills which are or were operated by the County.
DI.D Page 71 of 104
- 10 -
6.1.d Collection Service. The County shall not provide Solid Waste collection
services within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and agreed to by both
Parties.
6.1.e Support and Assistance. The County shall provide support and technical
assistance to the City consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for a
Waste Prevention and Recycling program. Such support may include the award of grants to
support programs with System benefits. The County shall develop educational materials related
to Waste Prevention and Recycling and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the
educational materials and will make these available to the City for its use. Although the County
will not be required to provide a particular level of support or fund any City activities related to
Waste Prevention and Recycling, the County intends to move forward aggressively to promote
Waste Prevention and Recycling.
6.1.f Forecast. The County shall develop Solid Waste stream forecasts in
connection with System operations as part of the comprehensive planning process in accordance
with Article XI.
6.1.g Facilities and Services. The County shall provide facilities and services
pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Transfer and
Waste Management plan as adopted and County Solid Waste stream forecasts.
6.1.h Financial Policies. The County will maintain financial policies to guide
the System’s operations and investments. The policies shall be consistent with this Agreement
and shall address debt issuance, rate stabilization, cost containment, reserves, asset ownership
and use, and other financial issues. The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer System improvements. The policies shall be developed and/or revised through
DI.D Page 72 of 104
- 11 -
discussion with MSWAC, the Regional Policy Committee, the County Executive and the County
Council. Such policies shall be codified at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan updates,
but may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the Comprehensive Plan process.
6.2 City
6.2.a Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other entity
as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for Solid Waste collection services
provided within the City's corporate limits.
6.2.b Disposal. The City shall cause to be delivered to the County’s System for
Disposal all such Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste which is authorized to be delivered to
the System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules or regulations and is generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City and
shall authorize the County to designate Disposal sites for the Disposal of all such Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except
for Solid Waste which is eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste Recycling activities
consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. No Solid Waste generated or
collected within the City may be Diverted from the designated Disposal sites without County
approval.
6.3 JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES.
6.3.a Consistent with the Parties’ overall commitment to ongoing
communication and coordination, the Parties will endeavor to notify and coordinate with each
other on the development of any City or County plan, facility, contract, dispute, or other Solid
Waste issue that could have potential significant impacts on the County, the System, or the
City or Cities.
DI.D Page 73 of 104
- 12 -
6.3.b The Parties, together with other Cities, will coordinate on the development
of emergency plans related to Solid Waste, including but not limited to debris management.
VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES
AND OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL; USE OF SYSTEM REVENUES
7.1 In establishing Disposal Rates for System Users, the County shall consult with
MSWAC consistent with Section IX. The County may adopt and amend by ordinance rates
necessary to recover all costs of the System including but not limited to operations and
maintenance, costs for handling, processing and Disposal of Solid Waste, siting, design and
construction of facility upgrades or new facilities, Recycling, education and mitigation, planning,
Waste Prevention, reserve funds, financing, defense and payment of claims, insurance, System
liabilities including environmental releases, monitoring and closure of landfills which are or
were operated by the County, property acquisition, grants to cities, and administrative functions
necessary to support the System and Solid Waste handling services during emergencies as
established by local, state and federal agencies or for any other lawful solid waste purpose, and
in accordance with chapter 43.09.210 RCW. Revenues from Disposal rates shall be used only for
such purposes. The County shall establish classes of customers for Solid Waste management
services and by ordinance shall establish rates for classes of customers.
7.2. It is understood and agreed that System costs include payments to the County
general fund for Disposal of Solid Waste at the Cedar Hills Landfill calculated in accordance
with this Section 7.2, and that such rental payments shall be established based on use valuations
provided to the County by an independent-third party Member, Appraisal Institute (MAI)
certified appraiser selected by the County in consultation with MSWAC.
DI.D Page 74 of 104
- 13 -
7.2.a A use valuation shall be prepared consistent with MAI accepted principles
for the purpose of quantifying the value to the System of the use of Cedar Hills Landfill for
Disposal of Solid Waste over a specified period of time (the valuation period). The County shall
establish a schedule of annual use charges for the System’s use of the Cedar Hills Landfill which
shall not exceed the most recent use valuation. Prior to establishing the schedule of annual use
charges, the County shall seek review and comment as to both the use valuation and the
proposed payment schedule from MSWAC. Upon request, the County will share with and
explain to MSWAC the information the appraiser requests for purposes of developing the
appraiser's recommendation.
7.2.b Use valuations and the underlying schedule of use charges shall be
updated if there are significant changes in Cedar Hills Landfill capacity as a result of opening
new Disposal areas and as determined by revisions to the existing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Site Development Plan; in that event, an updated appraisal will be performed in compliance with
MAI accepted principles. Otherwise, a reappraisal will not occur. Assuming a revision in the
schedule of use charges occurs based on a revised appraisal, the resulting use charges shall be
applied beginning in the subsequent rate period.
7.2.c The County general fund shall not charge use fees or receive other
consideration from the System for the System’s use of any transfer station property in use as of
the effective date of this Agreement. The County further agrees that the County general fund
may not receive payments from the System for use of assets to the extent those assets are
acquired with System revenues. As required by chapter 43.09.210 RCW, the System’s use of
assets acquired with the use of other separate County funds (e.g., the Roads Fund, or other funds)
DI.D Page 75 of 104
- 14 -
will be subject to use charges; similarly, the System will charge other County funds for use of
System property.
VIII. LIABILITY
8.1 Non-Environmental Liability Arising Out-of-County Operations. Except as
provided in this Section, Sections 8.5 and 8.6, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the County's attorneys against
any and all claims arising out of the County's operations during the term of this Agreement and
settle such claims, provided that all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the County thereby are
System costs which may be satisfied from Disposal Rates as provided in Section VII herein. In
providing such defense of the City, the County shall exercise good faith in such defense or
settlement so as to protect the City's interest. For purposes of this Section "claims arising out of
the County's operations" shall mean claims arising out of the ownership, control, or maintenance
of the System, but shall not include claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in
connection with the System or other activities under the control of the City which may be
incidental to the County's operation. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to claims
arising out of the sole negligence or intentional acts of the City. The provisions of this Section
shall survive for claims brought within three (3) years past the term of this Agreement
established under Section III.
8.2 Cooperation. In the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim under
Section 8.1, the City shall cooperate with the County.
8.3 Officers, Agents, and Employees. For purposes of this Section VIII, references to
City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents of either Party,
DI.D Page 76 of 104
- 15 -
acting within the scope of their authority. Transporters or generators of waste who are not
officers or employees of the City or County are not included as agents of the City or County for
purposes of this Section.
8.4 Each Party by mutual negotiation hereby waives, with respect to the other Party
only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial
Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
8.5 Unacceptable Waste
8.5.a All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the
City which is delivered to the System for Disposal shall be in compliance with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) (RCRA), chapters 70.95 and 70.105
RCW, King County Code Title 10, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, the
Solid Waste Division operating rules, and all other Federal, State and local environmental health
laws, rules or regulations that impose restrictions or requirements on the type of waste that may
be delivered to the System, as they now exist or are hereafter adopted or amended.
8.5.b For purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to have
complied with the requirements of Subsection 8.5.a if it has adopted an ordinance requiring
waste delivered to the System for Disposal to meet the laws, rules, or regulations specified in
Subsection 8.5.a. However, nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve the City from any
obligation or liability it may have under the laws mentioned in Subsection 8.5.a arising out of the
City's actions other than adopting, enforcing, or requiring compliance with said ordinance, such
as liability, if any exists, of the City as a transporter or generator for improper transport or
Disposal of regulated dangerous waste. Any environmental liability the City may have for
DI.D Page 77 of 104
- 16 -
releases of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances or wastes to the environment is dealt
with under Sections 8.6 and 8.7.
8.5.c The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County for any
property damages or personal injury caused solely by the City's failure to adopt an ordinance
under Subsection 8.5.b. In the event the City acts to defend the County under this Subsection, the
County shall cooperate with the City.
8.5.d The City shall make best efforts to include language in its contracts,
franchise agreements, or licenses for the collection of Solid Waste within the City that allow for
enforcement by the City against the collection contractor, franchisee or licensee for violations of
the laws, rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a. The requirements of this Subsection 8.5.d shall
apply to the City's first collection contract, franchise, or license that becomes effective or is
amended after the effective date of this Agreement.
8.5.d.i If waste is delivered to the System in violation of the laws,
rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a, before requiring the City to take any action under
Subsection 8.5.d.ii, the County will make reasonable efforts to determine the parties’ responsible
for the violation and will work with those parties to correct the violation, consistent with
applicable waste clearance and acceptance rules, permit obligations, and any other legal
requirements.
8.5.d.ii If the violation is not corrected under Subsection 8.5.d.i and
waste is determined by the County to have been generated or collected from within the corporate
limits of the City, the County shall provide the City with written notice of the violation. Upon
such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the violation and prevent similar
future violations to the reasonable satisfaction of the County which may include but not be
DI.D Page 78 of 104
- 17 -
limited to removing the waste and disposing of it in an approved facility; provided that nothing
in this Subsection 8.5.d.ii shall obligate the City to handle regulated dangerous waste, as defined
in WAC 173-351-200(1)(b)(i), and nothing in this Subsection shall relieve the City of any
obligation it may have apart from this Agreement to handle regulated dangerous waste. If, in
good faith, the City disagrees with the County regarding the violation, such dispute shall be
resolved between the Parties using the Dispute Resolution process in Section XII or, if
immediate action is required to avoid an imminent threat to public health, safety or the
environment, in King County Superior Court. Each Party shall be responsible for its own
attorneys' fees and costs. Failure of the City to take the steps requested by the County pending
Superior Court resolution shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement; provided, however,
that this shall not release the City for damages or loss to the County arising out of the failure to
take such steps if the Court finds a City violation of the requirements to comply with applicable
laws set forth in Subsection 8.5.a.
8.6 Environmental Liability.
8.6.a Neither the County nor the City holds harmless or indemnifies the other
with regard to any liability arising under 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or
pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW (MTCA) or as hereafter amended and any state legislation
imposing liability for System-related cleanup of contaminated property from the release of
pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances and/or damages resulting from property
contaminated from the release of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances
(“Environmental Liabilities”).
DI.D Page 79 of 104
- 18 -
8.6.b Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create new Environmental
Liability nor release any third-party from Environmental Liability. Rather, the intent is to protect
the general funds of the Parties to this Agreement by ensuring that, consistent with best business
practices, an adequate portion of Disposal Rates being collected from the System Users are set
aside and accessible in a fair and equitable manner to pay the respective County and City’s
Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.c The purpose of this Subsection is to establish a protocol for the setting
aside, and subsequent distribution of, Disposal Rates intended to pay for Environmental
Liabilities of the Parties, if and when such liabilities should arise, in order to safeguard the
Parties’ general funds. To do so, the County shall:
8.6.c.i Use Disposal Rates to obtain and maintain, to the extent
commercially available under reasonable terms, insurance coverage for System-related
Environmental Liability that names the City as an Additional Insured. The County shall establish
the adequacy, amount and availability of such insurance in consultation with MSWAC. Any
insurance policy in effect on the termination date of this Agreement with a term that extends past
the termination date shall be maintained until the end of the policy term.
8.6.c.ii Use Disposal Rates to establish and maintain a reserve fund to
help pay the Parties’ Environmental Liabilities not already covered by System rates or insurance
maintained under Subsection 8.6.c.i above (“Environmental Reserve Fund”). The County shall
establish the adequacy of the Environmental Reserve Fund in consultation with MSWAC and
consistent with the financial policies described in Article VI. The County shall retain the
Environmental Reserve Fund for a minimum of 30 years following the closure of the Cedar Hills
Landfill (the “Retention Period”). During the Retention Period, the Environmental Reserve Fund
DI.D Page 80 of 104
- 19 -
shall be used solely for the purposes for which it was established under this Agreement. Unless
otherwise required by law, at the end of the Retention Period, the County and Cities shall agree
as to the disbursement of any amounts remaining in the Environmental Reserve Fund. If unable
to agree, the County and City agree to submit disbursement to mediation and if unsuccessful to
binding arbitration in a manner similar to Section 39.34.180 RCW to the extent permitted by law.
8.6.c.iii Pursue state or federal grant funds, such as grants from the
Local Model Toxics Control Account under chapter 70.105D.070(3) RCW and chapter 173-322
WAC, or other state or federal funds as may be available and appropriate to pay for or remediate
such Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.d If the funds available under Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii are not adequate to
completely satisfy the Environmental Liabilities of the Parties to this Agreement then to the
extent feasible and permitted by law, the County will establish a financial plan including a rate
schedule to help pay for the County and City’s remaining Environmental Liabilities in
consultation with MSWAC.
8.6.e The County and the City shall act reasonably and quickly to utilize funds
collected or set aside through the means specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii and 8.6.d to conduct
or finance response or clean-up activities in order to limit the County and City’s exposure, or in
order to comply with a consent decree, administrative or other legal order. The County shall
notify the City within 30 days of any use of the reserve fund established in 8.6.c.iii.
8.6.f In any federal or state regulatory proceeding, and in any action for
contribution, money expended by the County from the funds established in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d. to pay the costs of remedial investigation, cleanup, response or other action required
DI.D Page 81 of 104
- 20 -
pursuant to a state or federal laws or regulations shall be considered by the Parties to have been
expended on behalf and for the benefit of the County and the Cities.
8.6.g In the event that the funds established as specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d are insufficient to cover the entirety of the County and Cities’ collective Environmental
Liabilities, the funds described therein shall be equitably allocated between the County and
Cities to satisfy their Environmental Liabilities. Factors to be considered in determining
“equitably allocated” may include the size of each Party’s System User base and the amount of
rates paid by that System User base into the funds, and the amount of the Solid Waste generated
by the Parties’ respective System Users. Neither the County nor the Cities shall receive a benefit
exceeding their Environmental Liabilities.
8.7 The County shall not charge or seek to recover from the City any costs or
expenses for which the County indemnified the State of Washington in Exhibit A to the
Quitclaim Deed from the State to the County for the Cedar Hills Landfill, dated February 24,
1993, to the extent such costs are not included in System costs.
IX. CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
9.1 There is hereby created an advisory committee comprised of representatives from
cities, which shall be known as the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (“MSWAC”).
The City may designate a representative and alternate(s) to serve on MSWAC. MSWAC shall
elect a chair and vice-chair and shall adopt bylaws to guide its deliberations. The members of
MSWAC shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing bodies and shall receive no compensation
from the County.
DI.D Page 82 of 104
- 21 -
9.2 MSWAC is the forum through which the Parties together with other cities
participating in the System intend to discuss and seek to resolve System issues and concerns.
MSWAC shall assume the following advisory responsibilities:
9.2.a Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive, Solid Waste
Advisory Committee, and other jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of Solid Waste
management and planning;
9.2.b Consult with and advise the County on technical issues related to Solid
Waste management and planning;
9.2.c Assist in the development of alternatives and recommendations for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other plans governing the future of the
System, and facilitate a review and/or approval of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan by each jurisdiction;
9.2.d Assist in the development of proposed interlocal Agreements between
King County and cities for planning, Waste Prevention and Recycling, and waste stream control;
9.2.e Review and comment on Disposal Rate proposals and County financial
policies;
9.2.f Review and comment on status reports on Waste Prevention, Recycling,
energy/resources recovery, and System operations with inter-jurisdictional impact;
9.2.g Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators,
cities, recyclers, and the County with respect to its planned and operated Disposal Systems;
9.2.h Provide coordination opportunities among the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, the Regional Policy Committee, the County, cities, private waste haulers, and
recyclers;
DI.D Page 83 of 104
- 22 -
9.2.i Assist cities in recognizing municipal Solid Waste responsibilities,
including collection and Recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities; and
9.2.j Provide input on such disputes as MSWAC deems appropriate.
9.3 The County shall assume the following responsibilities with respect to MSWAC;
9.3.a The County shall provide staff support to MSWAC;
9.3.b In consultation with the chair of MSWAC, the County shall notify all
cities and their designated MSWAC representatives and alternates of the MSWAC meeting
times, locations and meeting agendas. Notification by electronic mail or regular mail shall meet
the requirements of this Subsection;
9.3.c The County will consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and
issues posed by MSWAC regarding the System, and will seek to resolve those issues in
collaboration with the Cities. Such issues shall include but are not limited to development of
efficient and accountable billing practices; and
9.3.d. The County shall provide all information and supporting documentation
and analyses as reasonably requested by MSWAC for MSWAC to perform the duties and
functions described in Section 9.2.
X. FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
10.1 As of the effective date of this Agreement, the Forum Interlocal Agreement and
Addendum to Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal Agreement by and
between the City and County continue through June 30, 2028. After 2028 responsibilities
assigned to the Forum shall be assigned to the Regional Policy Committee. The Parties agree that
Solid Waste System policies and plans shall continue to be deemed regional countywide policies
DI.D Page 84 of 104
- 23 -
and plans that shall be referred to the Regional Policy Committee for review consistent with
King County Charter Section 270.30 and chapter 1.24 King County Code.
XI. COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
11.1 King County is designated to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and this plan shall include the City's Solid Waste
Management Comprehensive Plan pursuant to chapter 70.95.080(3) RCW.
11.2 The Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and any necessary revisions
proposed. The County shall consult with MSWAC to determine when revisions are necessary.
King County shall provide services and build facilities in accordance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
11.3 The Comprehensive Plans will promote Waste Prevention and Recycling in
accordance with Washington State Solid Waste management priorities pursuant to chapter 70.95
RCW, at a minimum.
11.4 The Comprehensive Plans will be prepared in accordance with chapter 70.95
RCW and Solid Waste planning guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology. The plan
shall include, but not be limited to:
11.4.a Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities
required for handling all waste types;
11.4.b Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
11.4.c Policies concerning waste reduction, Recycling, Energy and Resource
Recovery, collection, transfer, long-haul transport, Disposal, enforcement and administration;
and
DI.D Page 85 of 104
- 24 -
11.4.d Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item c above.
11.5 The cost of preparation by King County of the Comprehensive Plan will be
considered a cost of the System and financed out of the rate base.
11.6 The Comprehensive Plans will be “adopted” within the meaning of this
Agreement when the following has occurred:
11.6.a The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council; and
11.6.b The Comprehensive Plan is approved by cities representing three-quarters
of the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties to the Forum
Interlocal Agreement. In calculating the three-quarters, the calculations shall consider only those
incorporated jurisdictions taking formal action to approve or disapprove the Comprehensive Plan
within 120 days of receipt of the Plan. The 120-day time period shall begin to run from receipt
by an incorporated jurisdiction of the Forum's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan, or,
if the Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the Comprehensive Plan from
the Forum without recommendation.
11.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council, but not
receive approval of three-quarters of the cities acting on the Comprehensive Plan, and should
King County and the cities be unable to resolve their disagreement, then the Comprehensive Plan
shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and the State Department of Ecology will
resolve any disputes regarding Comprehensive Plan adoption and adequacy by approving or
disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or any part thereof.
11.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If any City disagrees with such determination, then the
City can request that the Forum determine whether or not the City is affected. Such
DI.D Page 86 of 104
- 25 -
determination shall be made by a two-thirds majority vote of all representative members of the
Forum.
11.9 Should King County and the affected jurisdictions be unable to agree on
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed amendments shall be referred to the
Department of Ecology to resolve any disputes regarding such amendments.
11.10 Should there be any impasse between the Parties regarding Comprehensive Plan
adoption, adequacy, or consistency or inconsistency or whether any permits or programs adopted
or proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the Department of Ecology shall
resolve said disputes.
XII. MITIGATION
12.1 The County will design, construct and operate Solid Waste facilities in a manner
to mitigate their impact on host Cities and neighboring communities pursuant to applicable law
and regulations.
12.2 The Parties recognize that Solid Waste facilities are regional facilities. The
County further recognizes that host Cities and neighboring communities may sustain impacts
which can include but are not limited to local infrastructure, odor, traffic into and out of Solid
Waste facilities, noise and litter.
12.3 Collaboration in Environmental Review. In the event the County is the sole or co-
Lead Agency, then prior to making a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), the County will provide a copy of the SEPA environmental checklist, if any,
and proposed SEPA threshold determination to any identifiable Host City (as defined below) and
adjacent or neighboring city that is signatory to the Agreement and that may be affected by the
DI.D Page 87 of 104
- 26 -
project ("Neighboring City") and seek their input. For any facility for which the County prepares
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the County will meet with any identified potential
Host City (as defined below) and any Neighboring City to seek input on the scope of the EIS and
appropriate methodologies and assumptions in preparing the analyses supporting the EIS.
However, nothing in this Section shall limit or impair the County's ability to timely complete the
environmental review process.
12.4 Collaboration in Project Permitting. If a new or reconstructed Solid Waste facility
is proposed to be built within the boundaries of the City ("Host City") and the project requires
one or more "project permits" as defined in chapter 36.70B.020(4) RCW from the Host City,
before submitting its first application for any of the project permits, the County will meet with
the Host City and any Neighboring City, to seek input. However, nothing in this Section shall
limit or impair the County's ability to timely submit applications for or receive permits, nor
waive any permit processing or appeal timelines.
12.5 Separately, the County and the City recognize that in accordance with 36.58.080
RCW, a city is authorized to charge the County to mitigate impacts directly attributable to a
County-owned Solid Waste facility. The County acknowledges that such direct costs include
wear and tear on infrastructure including roads. To the extent that the City establishes that such
charges are reasonably necessary to mitigate such impacts, payments to cover such impacts may
only be expended only to mitigate such impacts and are System costs. If the City believes that it
is entitled to mitigation under this Agreement, the City may request that the County undertake a
technical analysis regarding the extent of impacts authorized for mitigation . Upon receiving such
a request, the County, in coordination with the City and any necessary technical consultants, will
develop any analysis that is reasonable and appropriate to identify impacts. The cost for such
DI.D Page 88 of 104
- 27 -
analysis is a System cost. The City and County will work cooperatively to determine the
appropriate mitigation payments and will document any agreement in a Memorandum of
Agreement. If the City and the County cannot agree on mitigation payments, the dispute
resolution process under chapter 36.58.080 RCW will apply rather than the dispute resolution
process under Section XII of the Agreement.
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 Unless otherwise expressly stated, the terms of this Section XIII shall apply to
disputes arising under this Agreement.
13.2 Initial Meeting.
13.2.a Either Party shall give notice to the other in writing of a dispute involving
this Agreement.
13.2.b Within ten (10) business days of receiving or issuing such notice, the
County shall send an email notice to all Cities.
13.2.c Within ten (10) business days of receiving the County’s notice under
Subsection 13.2.b, a City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to participate in
the Dispute Resolution process.
13.2.d Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the initial notice of dispute issued under Subsection 13.2.a, the County shall
schedule a time for staff from the County and any City requesting to participate in the dispute
resolution process ("Participating City") to meet (the “initial meeting”). The County shall
endeavor to set such initial meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities and to
the County.
DI.D Page 89 of 104
- 28 -
13.3 Executives' Meeting.
13.3.a If the dispute is not resolved within sixty (60) days of the initial meeting,
then within seven (7) days of expiration of the sixty (60)-day period, the County shall send an
email notice to all Participating Cities that the dispute was not resolved and that a meeting of the
County Executive, or his/her designee and the chief executive officer(s) of each Participating
City, or the designees of each Participating City (an “executives' meeting”) shall be scheduled to
attempt to resolve the dispute. It is provided, however, that the County and the Participating
Cities may mutually agree to extend the sixty (60)-day period for an additional fifteen (15) days
if they believe further progress may be made in resolving the dispute, in which case, the
County’s obligation to send its email notice to the Participating Cities under this Subsection that
the dispute was not resolved shall be within seven (7) days of the end of the extension. Likewise,
the County and the Participating Cities may mutually conclude prior to the expiration of the sixty
(60)-day period that further progress is not likely in resolving the dispute at this level, in which
case, the County shall send its email notice that the dispute was not resolved within seven (7)
days of the date that the County and the Participating Cities mutually concluded that further
progress is not likely in resolving the dispute.
13.3.b Within seven (7) days of receiving the County’s notice under Subsection
13.3.a each Participating City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to
participate in the executives' meeting.
13.3.c Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the notice of the executives' meeting issued under Subsection 13.3.a, the County
shall schedule a time for the executives' meeting. The County shall endeavor to set such
DI.D Page 90 of 104
- 29 -
executives' meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities that provided notice
under Subsection 13.3.b and to the County.
13.4. Non-Binding Mediation.
13.4.a If the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days of the executives'
meeting, then any Participating City that was Party to the executives' meeting or the County may
refer the matter to non-binding meditation by sending written notice within thirty-five (35) days
of the initial executives' meeting to all Parties to such meeting.
13.4.b Within seven (7) days of receiving or issuing notice that a matter will be
referred to non-binding mediation, the County shall send an email notice to all Participating
Cities that provided notice under Subsection 13.3.b informing them of the referral.
13.4.c Within seven (7) days of receiving the County’s notice under Subsection
13.4.b, each Participating City shall notify the County in writing if it wishes to participate in the
non-binding mediation.
13.4.d The mediator will be selected in the following manner: The City(ies)
electing to participate in the mediation shall propose a mediator and the County shall propose a
mediator; in the event the mediators are not the same person, the two mediators shall select a
third mediator who shall mediate the dispute. Alternately, the City(ies) participating in the
mediation and the County may agree to select a mediator through a mediation service mutually
acceptable to the Parties. The Parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by
the mediator or mediation service. For purposes of allocating costs of the mediator or mediation
service, all Cities participating in the mediation will be considered one Party.
13.5 Superior Court. Any Party, after participating in the non-binding mediation, may
commence an action in King County Superior Court after one hundred eighty (180) days from
DI.D Page 91 of 104
- 30 -
the commencement of the mediation, in order to resolve an issue that has not by then been
resolved through non-binding mediation, unless all Parties to the mediation agree to an earlier
date for ending the mediation.
13.6 Unless this Section XIII does not apply to a dispute, then the Parties agree that
they may not seek relief under this Agreement in a court of law or equity unless and until each of
the procedural steps set forth in this Section XIII have been exhausted, provided, that if any
applicable statute of limitations will or may run during the time that may be required to exhaust
the procedural steps in this Section XIII, a Party may file suit to preserve a cause of action while
the Dispute Resolution process continues. The Parties agree that, if necessary and if allowed by
the court, they will seek a stay of any such suit while the Dispute Resolution process is
completed. If the dispute is resolved through the Dispute Resolution process, the Parties agree to
dismiss the lawsuit, including all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims, with prejudice and
without costs to any Party.
XIV. FORCE MAJEURE
The Parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement
when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond the control of either Party
(“force majeure”). The term “force majeure” shall include, without limitation by the following
enumeration: acts of nature, acts of civil or military authorities, terrorism, fire, accidents,
shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, industrial, civil or public disturbances, or labor
disputes, causing the inability to perform the requirements of this Agreement, if either Party is
rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event to perform or comply with any
obligation or condition of this Agreement, upon giving notice and reasonably full particulars to
DI.D Page 92 of 104
- 31 -
the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the
extent practicable to restore normal operations.
XV. MERGER
This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representation and/or
agreements between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes
the entire contract between the Parties [except with regard to the provisions of the Forum
Interlocal Agreement]; provided that nothing in Section XV supersedes or amends any
indemnification obligation that may be in effect pursuant to a contract between the Parties other
than the Original Agreement; and further provided that nothing in this Agreement supersedes,
amends or modifies in any way any permit or approval applicable to the System or the County’s
operation of the System within the jurisdiction of the City.
XVI. WAIVER
No waiver by either Party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or
construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of any subsequent breach
whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
XVII. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or
person except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be
entitled to be treated as a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.
DI.D Page 93 of 104
- 32 -
XVIII. SURVIVABILITY
Except as provided in Section 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, Section 8.6.c, except 8.6.ciii and Section 8.6d,
no obligations in this Agreement survive past the expiration date as established in Section III.
XIX. NOTICE
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a notice required to be provided under
the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested or by
personal service to the following person:
For the City:
DI.D Page 94 of 104
- 33 -
For the County:
Director
King County Solid Waste Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, Washington 98104
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each Party on the date
set forth below:
CITY of KING COUNTY
(Mayor/City Manager) King County Executive
Date Date
Clerk-Attest Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date Date
DI.D Page 95 of 104
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Red Light Photo Enforcement
Date:
January 23, 2013
Department:
Police
Attachments:
2012 PhotoSafe End of Year Review
RedFlex December 2012 Financial Report
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Lee
Meeting Date:January 28, 2013 Item Number:DI.E
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E Page 96 of 104
AUBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT
PhotoSafe Auburn
2012 Review
DI.E Page 97 of 104
PURPOSE
The City of Auburn launched the Traffic Safety and Enforcement Camera program,
PhotoSafe, on June 30th, 2006. Initially the program included two intersections, a third
was added in December 2006. The program was expanded further and now includes a
total of 17 cameras throughout the city.
The primary goal of the program is to improve traffic safety through reduction of red
light violations and associated collisions, and to reduce incidents of speeding in
designated school zones.
Today, the program includes three intersections and six school zones.
INTERSECTIONS
2006
June Auburn Way South and 4th SE (two approaches)
Auburn Way South and M SE (two approaches)
December Harvey and 8th NE (one approach)
SCHOOL SPEED ZONES
2006
November Mt. Baker/ Gildo Rey School Zone (two approaches)
2007
November Chinook Elementary School Zone (two approaches)
Dick Scobee School Zone (two approaches)
2009
September Lea Hill Elementary School Zone (two approaches)
Arthur Jacobsen School Zone (two approaches)
2011
September Lakeland Hills Elementary (two approaches)
DI.E Page 98 of 104
RED LIGHT VIOLATION REDUCTION
Yearly Violation Reduction
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4th/AWS-SB 4th/AWS-NB M/AWS-WB M/AWS-NB 8th/Harvey
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
4th/AWS-SB 4th/AWS-NB M/AWS-WB M/AWS-NB 8th/Harvey Total
2007 2,764 3,751 1,855 194 1,297 9,861
2008 2,277 2,082 1,465 135 881 6,840
2009 1,594 1,349 1,146 90 530 4,709
2010 1,622 1,232 1,120 104 229 4,307
2011 1,755 1,266 877 57 245 4,200
2012 1,302 943 485 31 309 3,070
% Reduction
2007 to 2012 - 52.9% - 74.9% - 73.9% - 84 % - 76.2 % - 68.9 %
N/B = Northbound
E/B = Eastbound
S/B = Southbound
W/B = Westbound
DI.E Page 99 of 104
SCHOOL ZONE SPEED ENFORCEMENT
Yearly Violation Reduction
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Scobee Chinook Mt. Baker Lea Hill Arthur
Jacobsen
Lakeland Hills
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Scobee Chinook Mt. Baker Lea Hill
Arthur
Jacob
Lakeland
Hills
2007 41 518 4,502 - - -
2008 357 2,429 1,811 - - -
2009 309 2,071 694 1,835 2,253 -
2010 180 1,489 751 2,488 4,138 -
2011 122 886 658 1782 2108 2
2012 118 668 508 1692 944 327
-66.9%
(2008 to
2012)
-72.5%
(2008 to
2012)
-88.7%
(2007 to
2012
-32%
(2010 to
2012)
-77.2%
(2010 to
2012)
First
complete
year of
operation
was 2012
Year to year comparisons differ between school zones because only the first complete year of data
is used to compare to 2012.
DI.E Page 100 of 104
COLLISION DATA
The following chart shows the number of reported collisions and injuries for each year at
the three intersections that have PhotoSafe enforcement. The intersections at 4th St. SE
and Auburn Way South and “M” St. SE and Auburn Way South became active in June of
2006. The intersection of 8th St. NE and Harvey Road NE became active in November of
2007.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Collisions 39 31 38 33 30 31 28
Injuries 14 11 9 12 20 11 8
DI.E Page 101 of 104
2012 Redflex Financial Performance
Report to Municipal Services Committee
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2012 Year-to-date program financial performance
Revenue from photo-enforcement [a](i)47,063$ 52,176$ 47,588$ 48,008$ 51,467$ 59,669$ 41,656$ 28,117$ 30,620$ 86,009$ 48,993$ 54,974$ 596,339$
Expenses
City Payments to Redflex (ii)47,063$ 52,176$ 47,588$ 48,008$ 51,467$ 59,669$ 41,656$ 28,117$ 30,620$ 86,009$ 48,993$ 54,974$ 596,339$
Court clerk (vi)6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 6,613 - - 66,130
Temporary Judge (vi)1,000 1,000 1,250 1,000 1,250 900 1,050 1,100 1,600 1,600 - - 11,750
Legal costs 139 317 182 159 163 139 87 120 105 98 50 50 1,609
Officer review 376 306 415 279 416 320 329 202 592 780 687 429 5,132
Admin overhead 6,899 7,551 7,006 7,007 7,489 8,455 6,217 4,519 4,941 11,887 6,216 6,932 85,120
Total [b] (iv)62,090$ 67,963$ 63,054$ 63,067$ 67,397$ 76,097$ 55,952$ 40,672$ 44,472$ 106,987$ 55,946$ 62,385$ 766,081$
-
Revenue over/(under) expenses [a-b] (v)(15,027)$ (15,788)$ (15,466)$ (15,059)$ (15,930)$ (16,427)$ (14,296)$ (12,555)$ (13,852)$ (20,978)$ (6,954)$ (7,411)$ (169,742)$
Red Flex Invoices
As Invoiced to City 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 82,790$ 83,790$ 82,790$ 82,970$ 994,660$
Paid by City (iii)47,063 52,176 47,588 48,008 51,467 59,669 41,656 28,117 30,620 86,009 48,993 54,974 596,339
Difference between amounts invoiced and paid (35,727)$ (30,614)$ (35,202)$ (34,782)$ (31,323)$ (23,121)$ (41,134)$ (54,673)$ (52,170)$ 2,219$ (33,797)$ (27,996)$ (398,321)$
Footnotes
i. Revenue from photo-enforcement fines
ii. As per the agreement between the City and Redflex, the City's payment to Redflex is the lessor of the monthly invoice from Redflex or the monthly revenue from photo-enforcement fines.
iii. As per the agreement between the City and Redflex, the difference between the City's payment and the amount invoiced is accrued and will be payable from future surpluses or from
photo-enforcement fines upon termination of the Redflex program.
iv. Total expenses, including program operating expenses and Redflex invoice payments by the City
v. Difference between Revenue (a) and Total expenses (b)
vi. Effective November 2012, Court Clerk and Temporary Judge costs are not included in the expense due to KCDC running the Auburn Court.
Prepared by the Finance Department.
DI.E Page 102 of 104
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Project Matrix
Date:
January 23, 2013
Department:
Police
Attachments:
Project Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:
Meeting Date:January 28, 2013 Item Number:DI.G
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.G Page 103 of 104
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE PROJECT - GOAL MATRIX
NO.PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD COST REVIEW DATE EST. COMPL.
DATE STATUS
10P Red Light Photo Enforcement Bob Lee 1/28/2013
Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prev Oct-Dec); April (Prev Jan-Mar); July
(Prev Apr-June); October (Prev July-Sept) 2nd meeting of the
month. RedFlex contract set to expire in the Spring;
discuss at 1st meeting in February 2013.
20P Animal Control and Rescue Bob Lee 1/28/2013 On-Going
Council meeting 6/21 approved 2.5 year ILA for King
County Animal Services. On 9/19/11 Council approved
Resolution No. 4747 for Professional Services
Agreement. (Animal Shelter and Service beginning
January 1, 2012 with actual operations beginning
January 1, 2013). Animal Control Officer (non-
commissioned) starts employment on 12/3/12.
24P Fireworks Update Bob Lee 4/8/2013 On-Going Council met with MIT on 10/17/12 and reviewed the
2012 Fireworks season.
26P Graffiti Program Planning/Police On-Going Hotline Phone No. 931-3048 Ext. 7
27P Animal Control Licensing Program Michael Hursh 2/11/2013
Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prev Oct-Dec); April (Prev Jan-Mar); July
(Prev Apr-June); October (Prev July-Sept) 2nd meeting of the
month.
28 P Solid Waste Rate Review Shelley Coleman 6/10/2013
Through MSWMAC input from other cities will help COA
determine if it will change to direct billing. New rates will
go into effect January 1 (2013 & 2014). Annual rate
increases are planned in the next 4-5 years to end the
commercial subsidy for residential service.
29P Golf Course Working Capital Review and
Future Plans Shelley Coleman 1/28/2013 On-Going
Quarterly Reports: Jan (Prev Oct-Dec); April (Prev Jan-Mar); July
(Prev Apr-June); October (Prev July-Sept) 2nd meeting of the
month. 12/10/12 for golf course operations marketing
plan review.
30P Street Median Maintenance Daryl Faber 3/25/2013
Committee will work with PCDC and PW to develop and
implement standardized approach to street median
maintenance and appearance. Complete maintenance
guidelines and final comments.
31P Cemetery Update Daryl Faber 3/11/2013 Review Marketing Plan.
32P Towing Bob Lee 2/11/2013 2012 End of Year report.
NO.ITEM OF INTEREST
3 I Shopping Cart Update Randy Bailey 1/28/2013 January (Prev July-Dec), July (Prev Jan-June)
4 I Ordinance No. 6398 - Pull Tabs Dan Heid 2/11/2013
Annual review of taxation basis to determine if any
changes need to be made -dependent upon status of
economy. Ordinance No. 6398 was enacted 2/21/12.
5I Review Cemetery Endowment Care Fund Daryl Faber 9/9/2013
6I Review all non-Utility Enterprise
Fees/Funds Daryl Faber 9/9/2013
7I Concealed Pistol Licenses Benefit Cost
Analysis Bob Lee 2/11/2013 Determine if we have appropriate costs for this task.
Last Revision Date: 1/15/13 E:\AGENDA\MunicipalServicesPaperlessPacket\2013\2 - January 28\Resources\Matrix 01-15-13.xls
DI.G Page 104 of 104