CITY OF BELLEVUE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday
August 2, 2012
6:30 p.m.
Conference Room 1E-113
Bellevue City Hall
Bellevue, Washington
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Helland; Commissioners Swenson, Wang,
Cowan
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Mach, Morin, and Weller
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Jackman, Lucy Liu, Bob Brooks, Councilmember Stokes,
Kit Paulsen, Alison Bennett, Michael Paine, Susan Fife-Ferris
MINUTES TAKER: Laurie Hugdahl
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Swenson at 6:38 p.m.1
2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Patrick Bannon, Vice President of Public Affairs for the Bellevue Downtown
Association, thanked the ESC and staff for the attention given to sewer capacity
projects on NE 8th Street and acknowledged that those are major projects. He
commented on the challenge of making sure the traffic detour plans are easy to
read and understand, both ahead of time for businesses and residents, but also
during the work. He requested that the City keep in mind the unique balance of
services and needs of downtown residents and businesses when selecting critical
service providers.
Roxanne Shepherd, 14702 NE 52nd Place, Bellevue, Executive Director, Bellevue
Schools Foundation, commented on the importance of enterprises in the
community being broadly present in the community. She discussed an exciting
program that Sammamish High School is exploring called STEM – Science
Technology Engineering and Math. One of the primary components of that effort
is bringing real world problems in for students to address. She spoke to the
importance of businesses in the community working with groups in the
community, perhaps more than contracted for. She encouraged the ESC to think
about the broader components of the kinds of companies the City might look at to
contract for solid waste service.
1
Since there was not a quorum, the meeting skipped to item 5(a) then returned to item 2 when there was a
quorum. Chair Helland arrived at 6:43.
3.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, seconded by Commissioner
Cowan, to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously (4-0).
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 7, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes
Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, seconded by Commissioner Wang,
to approve the minutes.
Councilmember Stokes stated that it should be noted that he was present at the
June 7 meeting.
Motion passed unanimously (4-0) as corrected.
5.
REPORTS AND SUMMARIES
a.
ESC Calendar/Council Calendar
Commissioner Wang referred to the Storm Drainage Trenchless Repair item on
the Council Calendar for August 6 and the Sanitary Sewer Trenchless Repair item
on the Council Calendar for October 1 and asked for more information about
these projects. Mr. Jackman indicated he would check with Wes Jorgenson about
this and bring back more information. Commissioner Wang then asked about the
Motion to reject exposed sanitary sewer lakeline item on the Council Calendar for
August 6. Mr. Jackman explained that one of the items proposed in that contract
was to recover some exposed areas of the sewer lakeline and put some rockery in
to keep them from re-exposing. While the project was being done, the City was
also asking the contractor within the bid to take some samples for testing for the
long-term lakeline replacement. Those bids came in quite a bit higher than
anticipated and skewed the budget. The recommendation was to reject the bids.
Councilmember Stokes commented that Mr. Wang could find more information
about this on the website.
b.
Desk Packet Material

c.
Conservation & Outreach Events & Volunteer Opportunities
Cascade Update and Regional Conservation
Alison Bennett, Utilities Policy Advisor, introduced Chuck Clarke, Chief
Executive Officer of Cascade Water Alliance (Cascade), who delivered a
PowerPoint presentation about Cascade and regional conservation. Cascade is
now, as of three weeks ago, a regional municipal corporation with a new
organizational structure. It was originally set up under a unique provision under
state statute 13 years ago by a number of jurisdictions on the east side to address
concerns about the relationship with Seattle, the ability to assure long-term water
supply at a reasonable cost for the east side, and to have some control over future
supply. There are eight members (Bellevue, Issaquah, Redmond, Kirkland,
Tukwila, Sammamish Plateau, Covington, and Skyway.) Cascade has about
350,000 customers and currently provides 60-70% of members’ water.
Cascade has purchased and currently operates Lake Tapps. Cascade has formal
agreements with the Tribes to set minimum flows. It also has agreements with
homeowners on Lake Tapps to maintain lake levels during the recreation season.
There are agreements with four cities (Auburn, Buckley, Bonney Lake, and
Sumner) for joint approaches dealing with water going forward. Cascade also has
all the water rights issued for Lake Tapps. Cascade is continuing to deal with a
number of federal and state legislative issues such as getting the Corps to replace
the barrier dam; changing the way Mud Mountain Dam is operated by the Corps
to allow for flood control, recreational use, in-stream flows for fish, and water
supply; helping to resolve a state legal issue about whether water utilities can pay
for fire hydrants; and trying to get the standard for toilet flushing from 1.6 gallons
per flush to 1.28 gallons per flush.
Mr. Clarke reviewed long term supply and demand forecasts and emphasized that
the forecasts are generally wrong. Demand forecasting is both an art and a
science. He compared the actual water demand with past forecasts to illustrate this
point. He reviewed many forecasts and showed how the official demand
forecasting is consistently higher than actual demand. He stressed that the
forecasts are what drive major investments. Mr. Clarke then reviewed water use
and population. Since 1990 consumption has decreased by about 30% while
population has increased by 15%. He pointed out that demand does not
necessarily go up just because population goes up.
Chair Helland referred to the Water Demand Forecast and asked where the water
goes if the actual use continues to decrease or stay flat and there is a significant
delta between that and the water right. Mr. Clarke explained that Seattle would
keep it. There are some statutory provisions that address relinquishment, but it is
not generally done. Once people get the water rights it tends to stay that way. Mr.
Clarke noted that this raises issues about whether the negotiated agreements done
10 or 15 years ago should be renegotiated.
Mr. Clarke then reviewed Tacoma’s forecasts. He explained that the Cascade
Average Daily Demand (ADD) is generally declining, and pointed out that this is
a national trend. He explained that the Maximum Weekly Demand (MWD) is
what drives investment projects. He cautioned that for this region climate changes
may make us in a better place economically to make investments because there is
water infrastructure and water available. This could change the demand forecasts.
The long-term forecast shows an increase in demand starting by 2020. This makes
the assumption that the region will get back to historical growth patterns, but there
is some question about whether or not this will actually happen. Mr. Clarke
reviewed the Cascade Supply Portfolio with Lake Tapps phased in at 2030 and
then again in 2045. He noted that the longer Lake Tapps can be put off the better
off economically it will be. He pointed out that new connections for the cities in
Cascade decreased from 2006 to 2012. Increases are projected for the upcoming
years based on assumptions about growth.
Mr. Clarke explained that an economic analysis was done on the unit cost per
gallon to reduce peak season demand. This was compared with what it would cost
to either develop Lake Tapps or to buy the water. This was done in order to make
cost-effective sense with regard to conservation efforts. The cost is roughly $8$10/gallon to buy the water versus costs from $1 up to $800 per gallon to reduce
consumption for some programs. Cascade still wants to aggressively pursue
conservation, but does it for those things that make sense for all rate payers. As a
result, the decrease of peak use is emphasized, particularly with irrigation
programs. He then displayed a slide which illustrated the cost per gallon per day
for water and conservation programs, which is a way to reorient conservation
programs. Cascade is fairly aggressive with conservation and always has been,
but is scaling it back about 25% for 2013 and 2014. Rebates were being given out
for washers and toilets; those will no longer be rebated, but Cascade will be going
after legislation to change the flush standards. Basic programs, such as some
school programs, will remain in place, but Cascade is trying to make the most of
their investment in conservation going forward.
Commissioner Swenson referred to Mr. Clarke’s comments about working toward
legislation to require low capacity flush toilets and asked how this would be
implemented. Mr. Clarke explained that the requirement would be for new
construction and replacement toilets and would be ramped in over time.
Commissioner Wang asked about the effectiveness of putting a couple bricks in
the tank as a way to reduce consumption. Mr. Clarke noted that this is effective if
done properly. There are publications that have discussed that, but Cascade has
not pushed it.
Commissioner Cowan noted that conservation is taking the biggest hit in the
budget, and asked if Cascade is trying to get the homeowner to use more water to
close the gaps. Mr. Clarke said it is not; the biggest reduction is with eliminating
the rebates which accounts for about 80% of the reduction.
Mr. Clarke then reviewed the slide showing expenditures (except CIP) in millions
of dollars. The fixed costs are the biggest driver and the largest portion of the
budget. 70-80% of the budget is fixed, driven primarily off of water and debt.
Forecasts for costs show increases of 12% from 2012 to 2013 and 6% from 2013
to 2014. Cascade is trying to renegotiate contracts with Tacoma and Seattle to try
to moderate the impact of the take-or-pay contracts. If successful, this would
mitigate some of the future increases. Cascade has tried to make reductions where
possible.
Commissioner Wang asked what Operations consists of. Mr. Clarke reviewed the
history of Lake Tapps. It was put together in 1900 by PSE to generate electricity.
Dikes were put in to create one lake from four lakes to form Lake Tapps with a
diversion from the White River that has been in place since 1900. There is a
pipeline from Lake Tapps which goes down to a powerhouse where there is a
series of four turbines which generated power until 2004. Cascade owns the
diversion, the channel, the lake, the pipes that go down to the powerhouse, the
powerhouse, and the discharge channel that goes back to the White River.
Cascade is responsible for figuring out how to divert water to keep the lake full
and to maintain appropriate levels as well as all the maintenance and operation of
the powerhouse and all the facilities.
Commissioner Wang pointed out that Cascade is doing all this, but is not getting
any water out of Lake Tapps. Mr. Clarke affirmed this and discussed how owning
Lake Tapps provides Cascade with an insurance policy. If, in the future, Cascade
has to build a pipeline, they now control the majority of the property it would take
to build a pipeline from Lake Tapps north to the Cascade member system. Mr.
Clarke briefly reviewed a summary of rate changes for each city, but noted that
the member rates depend on the percentage of water taken from Seattle.
Commissioner Swenson referred to an article in the paper that indicated the region
would be seeing more cloud cover. He asked if cloud cover would affect water
consumption. Mr. Clarke replied that no one really knows. Most of the
international models show that the Puget Sound will continue to get the same
amount of precipitation although the nature of that will change (snow, rain, etc.),
and the temperatures will go up.
Commissioner Wang requested a map of Lake Tapps with relevant details for the
ESC’s reference. Mr. Clarke stated that he would forward that to the ESC.
Chair Helland asked why Lake Tapps is not used for power any more. Mr. Clarke
explained that it was no longer economically feasible with regard to licensing
requirements with FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).
d.
Budget Proposals Follow-Up - Lucy Liu and Bob Brooks
Ms. Liu reviewed the process thus far and summarized that the ESC had made a
recommendation to the Healthy and Sustainable Environment Results Team. In
that recommendation, the Commission agrees with the proposals submitted by
staff, but with reservations on the proposed staff reductions due to cost
containment measures and realignment, specifically to the conservation outreach
and pollution prevention programs and the Utilities customer service and billing
function. The Commission withheld opinion on the proposed staff reductions in
these two areas and requested additional information to review the customer
service and program delivery impacts as well as the financial implications of these
proposed reductions. Information regarding this is contained in the Commission’s
packet.
Ms. Liu reviewed the Results Teams recommendation for the budget proposals.
The Results Team has recommended full funding for the proposal costs funded by
Utility rates. There are some proposal costs related to services that the Utilities
department provides to General Fund departments such as street maintenance
administration and support for the Transportation department. Those costs were
removed from the Results Teams ranking and referred to the Leadership Team for
review and prioritization.
Bob Brooks solicited comments or questions regarding the August 2, 2012
Memorandum on the impacts of the proposed FTE reductions. Commissioner
Swenson referred to the Background on page 33 which talks about conservation
goals and savings. He asked about factors which were considered in coming up
with these numbers. Mr. Clarke stated that these numbers are based on Cascade’s
numbers which are pretty conservative. The numbers are exclusively based on
hard infrastructure investments such as toilets, irrigation systems, etc. Education
programs or changes in weather were not included in these numbers.
Chair Helland asked if the numbers for demand are elastic or inelastic. Mr. Clarke
discussed this topic and summarized that the numbers are fairly elastic at the high
levels, but inelastic at the lower levels.
Commissioner Swenson questioned the logic of reducing education programs for
children. Related to that issue, Chair Helland asked about the chart on page 35
regarding the conclusion to the financial impacts, which does not show details.
Ms. Liu explained that the bulk of the impact comes from the proposed cuts to
conservation outreach and the customer service program. She offered to provide
more detail about the table.
Mr. Brooks reviewed the Round Two Proposal Rankings, pointing out that four
proposals were not included in the ranking because they were considered to
represent pass-through costs. No proposals were cut or reduced further than was
already done prior to the submittal of proposals.
Mr. Brooks stated that the ESC’s recommendation letter to the Healthy and
Sustainable Environment Results Team was referenced by the Results Team in
their recommendation to the Leadership Team. The Results Team stated that the
ESC’s concerns were taken into consideration, but performance measures indicate
that the City is exceeding its water conservation and customer service goals and
that the proposed cuts are needed for this budget cycle. The Results Team
concluded that these cuts can be readdressed during the next budget cycle if
performance falls below target levels.
There was discussion about next steps and the Commission’s role in the process.
The next step is for the Leadership Team to make a recommendation to the City
Manager’s office in August. The City Manager will present his recommended
budget to the Council in October. In November, the ESC will hold a public
hearing and make a final recommendation to Council. The rate structure and
revenue stability study follow up is scheduled for September. Eventually draft
rates will be coming to the Commission.
Commissioner Swenson again expressed concern about the reductions in
conservation efforts towards educating children. He does not think that reductions
in that area can be reconciled with a healthy community. Commissioner Cowan
noted that this can be restated with their recommendation to the Council.
Councilmember Stokes concurred and noted that he raised this with the Council
already. He reiterated that the ESC’s role is advisory to the Council and it would
be appropriate to have a formal response from the Commission to the Council in
November.
Chair Helland asked if the Memo reflects Cascade’s projected level of effort
considering the budget reductions discussed earlier by Mr. Clarke. Susan FifeFerris was not sure when those cuts had been introduced and if they had been
included or not. The Memo reflects what Cascade told the City they were doing
within the last month or so.
Commissioner Cowan asked if the 25% reduction discussed by Mr. Clarke would
result in any further reductions in the programs referenced in the Memo. Ms. FifeFerris reiterated that she was not sure when the decision by Cascade was made,
but indicated she could follow up on that.
Commissioner Wang referred to the high rate increase in the next budget. He
noted that if conservation is not cut, something else would have to be cut; he
asked if there are any proposals for cutting anywhere else. The 12% increase is
pretty high, and he would rather see the rate be reasonable.
Commissioner Cowan commented that he would rather see the education continue
and an increase in the rate.
Mr. Jackman emphasized that staff recognizes the pain that some of these
recommendations have on certain aspects of the City’s customer base, including
schools and the kids who attend them. He reiterated that the ESC’s
recommendation has been heard by the Results Team and was forwarded to the
Leadership Team. It will also be heard by the City Manager and Council.
Chair Helland asked if a “fee for service” type of program has been considered for
some of these programs that are proposed to be cut. Ms. Fife-Ferris replied that in
her personal experience, there has not been much of a market for this, but the City
has not done any kind of study to see if people would pay for those services.
Commissioner Swenson suggested that some of these programs might be moved
to nonprofit organizations who having funding sources. He is uncomfortable with
just stopping them without ensuring that the programs will somehow be
continued.
e.
Shoreline Master Plan Update - Kit Paulsen, Michael Paine
Ms. Paulsen explained that the Planning Commission has put forward their latest
draft and is soliciting input from the ESC. Mr. Paine commented that staff has
been working on this project since 2007. He reviewed that the City issued a draft
more than a year ago, which the Planning Commission had issues with. The draft
under discussion tonight is a Planning Commission re-draft. The Planning
Commission’s focus was on the residential portion of the regulatory package and
spent significant time looking at the impact of the regulations on single-family
residential property. The Memo in the ESC packet summarizes some of the
extensive changes. He solicited questions.
Commissioner Wang noted that the shoreline setback was changed from 50 feet to
25 feet. He asked about the definition of lateral expansion and the purpose of
referencing the fact that the City of Sammamish authorizes this. Mr. Paine
explained how the Planning Commission worked to develop their regulations. He
explained that the lateral setback is sideways expansion, not a setback from the
lake. The City of Sammamish authorized a similar allowance but in a different
contextual environment. He noted that the City of Sammamish’s regulations as
approved were much more restrictive and protective because of the larger
setbacks and more prescriptive mitigation requirements.
Commissioner Wang then referred to page 37 and asked for more information
about the non-conforming single family development standards. Mr. Paine
reviewed regulations relating to non-conforming structures. This proposal allows
any legally established structure on the site to be conforming. In the case of a
teardown, the owner would be allowed to rebuild in the same location with
reference to shoreline. Mr. Paine summarized that in this instance, the nonconforming rules are less onerous in the shoreline than in any other part of the
city. Ms. Paulsen clarified that Utilities staff is only reviewing this from the
perspective of how this affects Utilities. She stated that another piece that was
brought forward, but hasn’t been modified yet, is about the Restoration Plan. The
Restoration Plan has had a recommendation for additional projects and changes
from the Phantom Lake Homeowners Association. The Planning Commission has
asked for Utilities and ESC input into those areas which have been identified as in
their respective purview. As part of those recommendations, lengthy
documentation from the Phantom Lake Homeowners Association was submitted
to the Planning Commission. The Executive Summary was distributed to the ESC.
Ms. Paulsen indicated she could provide the full 50-page document to the ESC if
so desired.
Chair Helland suggested that land use ordinances, insofar as they intersect with
drainage, are issues for the ESC to review. He then asked whose jurisdiction the
establishment of the ordinary high water mark is. Mr. Paine responded that the
establishment of the ordinary high water mark is totally under the jurisdiction of
the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). The DOE also has the final say
on everything that is associated with the Shoreline Master Program.
Commissioner Wang asked for clarification about regulations regarding public
access. Mr. Paine explained that this only refers to access from the upland to the
shore. Ms. Paulsen concurred and noted that this issue has been the subject of
ongoing discussions since the very first draft. Public access is a requirement of the
state and is one of the main provisions of the Shoreline Management Act. Staff
has worked diligently to keep in the phrase “where feasible” in this document.
There are a number of provisions in place that acknowledge some of the concerns
staff has been expressing repeatedly. Councilmember Stokes commented that the
shifting of the setback from 50 feet to 25 feet poses a lot of problems.
Commissioner Wang commented on issues with only having the 25 feet of
shoreline to work with for utility lines.
Commissioner Swenson commented that one of the alternatives for replacing the
lakelines involves using grinder pumps and moving it uphill. He noted that the
lateral shifting of houses could conceivably make that process more difficult and
could require the acquisition of a structure. He stressed that this sort of situation
needs to be looked at in light of the probability of moving that lakeline uphill so
that there is access for the feed lines and so forth. The decreased setback and the
increased lateral setback will just complicate matters further. Mr. Jackman replied
that staff is well aware of these issues and will continue to express their concerns
regarding the need to have room to work when the systems are replaced.
Commissioner Wang asked if the proposed lateral expansion would still be
limited by the side yard requirement. Mr. Paine confirmed that there will still be
side yard setbacks as well as any easement that Utilities may have required.
Ms. Paulsen stated that staff will be bringing this back at the next meeting on
September 6, but due to the Planning Commission’s timeline, staff will be
requesting turnaround the same night. Additional information will be presented to
the ESC prior to the next meeting.
Councilmember Stokes informed the ESC that there has been a proposal by the
Deputy Mayor to have some sort of mediation regarding the Phantom Lake
matter. Alternatively, some members of the Council are working with staff and
the chairs of the relevant commissions and board to work out a resolution for the
Phantom Lake issue. He noted that there are competing interests even within the
Phantom Lake group, but he thinks that it is possible to resolve this issue.
f.
Solid Waste Contract Review
Ms. Liu explained that the current contract expires in June of 2014. One of the
Commission’s roles is to advise the City Council on the services to be provided
under the new contract. Staff will return on September 6 to seek the ESC’s
recommendation on a preferred services option.
Susan Fife-Ferris introduced this item and reviewed the 2004 Solid Waste
Collection Contract process. The current contract was a 7-year contract with three
1-year options to extend. It was extended to its full extent and will end June 28,
2014. Basic services are included in the garbage fee. The rates were set at the time
the contract was executed with annual increases at 70% of the CPI throughout the
term plus fuel adjustments. It is currently a “Pay as You Throw” tiered rate
system.
Commissioner Cowan asked how fuel adjustments were made. Ms. Fife-Ferris
explained that fuel adjustments are incorporated into the rate. Fuel costs for the
previous year are reviewed. If costs have increased, an upward adjustment is
made in the rate. If costs have gone down, then a downward adjustment is made.
The current contract provides additional services such as customer service
assistance and billing; on-call bulky waste collection for an additional fee; litter
collection on a set route through City; on-call, free City facilities garbage,
recycling, and landscaping collection; special event garbage and recycling
collection for an additional fee; and special recycling collection events, covering
part of the cost. These additional services are used as a baseline for the new
contract. Items not currently covered by the contract include construction,
demolition, and landclearing debris (CDL), independently-contracted commercial
recycling, and food waste for commercial and multifamily customers.
There is expanding competition in the solid waste collection arena with four
viable solid waste collection vendors: CleanScapes, Republic Services, Waste
Connections, and Waste Management. With the competitive bid process, the City
will develop the collection contract with specified levels of service. This provides
the ability to price optional services that would not be part of the core service
package in the contract. The vendors then submit bids; and the Council approves
the successful vendors. The ESC’s role is to review the proposed service package,
provide feedback to staff, and recommend a preferred service package to the City
Council.
Chair Helland asked how the four firms were identified. Ms. Fife-Ferris replied
that the four companies mentioned are the only ones in the area that are big
enough or currently provide garbage service. Chair Helland asked if the City has
any idea whether all four are interested. Ms. Fife-Ferris thought that three of them
might be interested.
Commissioner Wang asked about the recommendation to eliminate the free
service to City facilities. Ms. Fife-Ferris explained that currently the City, as a
customer of Republic, gets free service. Republic pays for that service by
spreading that cost across their other customer rate base. Based on a recent court
ruling that involved the fire protection services and street lighting, which found
that that kind of service is actually a General Fund service and cannot be included
with the rate payers service, the City Attorney has determined that garbage
service should be paid for out of the General Fund and not spread across the
utility ratepayers. There was some discussion about the justification for this. Ms.
Fife-Ferris explained how this could be handled alternatively and noted that it will
ultimately be up to the City Council and the customers as to how to pay for this.
Commissioner Wang expressed his opinion that the cost for the service should be
a part of the overhead of Utilities.
The proposed contract services package builds on the existing service package.
The recommended services to be added include:
1.
Multifamily and Commercial Organics Recycling – embedded in
rate so more organics will be pulled out of the waste stream,
especially for commercial
2.
Single-family Bulky Waste Collection – on-call, monthly, or
quarterly with a reduced fee
3.
In-City Contractor-provided Service Center – This would be a year
round, 7-day/week center with secondary recyclables collection, a
retail area for recycling and conservation related products, and an
education center with displays
4.
Additional Curbside Recyclables Collected, such as fluorescent
lights
5.
Small Appliance and Small Electronics Recycling for MF – This
would extend the service to all City residents
6.
On-line Account Management and Payment – This extends a
service similar to MyUtilityBill to garbage services
7.
Inclement Weather Drop Site for Garbage – This would allow
customers to self-haul during extended winter storms.
Other changes to the contract being considered include:
1.
Low Emission Trucks – CNG or hybrid vehicles.
2.
Tiered Commercial Recycling Incentive – This would be based on
relative on-site container capacity.
3.
On-call Service for Small Appliance and Small Electronics
Collection – This would save money and be more efficient than the
current system.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Unlimited Commercial Recycling – Under the current contract
Commercial customers only gets 150% of the recycling for free.
Reduce Miscellaneous Fees – There are a lot of miscellaneous fees
charged, especially to commercial customers. Right now the fees
charged to City customers are equal to or higher than UTCregulated areas.
Eliminate All Distance Charges – This should be incorporated into
the base fee which would benefit commercial customers.
Eliminate Rental Fees and Sales Tax Paid by Customers – The
contractor has continually charged fees to the consumer under the
current contract. The City wants the contractor to pay that cost
upfront.
Require Service be available to All Private Roads – The current
contract requires customers to pull the containers down to the
entrance of smaller roads. The contractor would have to have a
signed agreement for every private road with the owners.
Friday Misses to be Collected on Saturday – The current contractor
picks up Friday misses on Monday.
Clearly Label Size of all Containers
Require all Containers have Bellevue-Specific Labels
Require Plastic Dumpsters Where Allowed
Require Leaky Container Stickers
Eliminate Compost Credit – This would save costs. Currently only
a small number of people take advantage of this and there is no
way to check it.
Eliminate Sunken Cans – Only 20 customers across the city have
these.
Eliminate Free Service to City Facilities
Change Contract Term to 7 Years + 7 years of extensions
Require Participation in Building Design Review
The next steps are for staff to respond to ESC questions. The ESC will then
comment to inform staff’s development of the service package. The ESC will
recommend a preferred service package at the September 6, 2012 meeting. Staff
will then take the recommended service package to the City Council in September
or October.
Commissioner Wang commended Ms. Fife-Ferris for preparing such a thorough
list. He expressed concern about item 18 on the proposed changes which states
that the contractor will be required to review plans and submit a recommendation
in regards to development plans. He commented that this will be difficult to
predict the costs so the contractor may overestimate that item. Secondly, he thinks
that staff should handle this. Ms. Fife-Ferris explained that the current contractor
already works with Development Services and wants to be involved because it is
in their best interest. The vendors are generally interested in participating in the
process to ensure adequate space for garbage and recycling is included in all
developments. Commissioner Wang noted that by putting this item into the
contract it creates another item of cost; he recommended that it be a voluntary
item.
Chair Helland asked if there are estimates about how much this costs the current
contractor to provide this service. Ms. Fife-Ferris noted that contractors do not
share that information. She reiterated that the cost is minimal and vendors really
do want to be included in the process.
Chair Helland asked for more information about the contract coordination
oversight and contract development items which were being cut in the budget.
Ms. Fife-Ferris explained that Tom Spille’s position will be eliminated in January.
Some of his responsibilities will go to her, some to Elaine Borjeson, and some
will go to the consultant already under contract to help develop the bid
documents.
Chair Helland asked how staff made the decision about whether to use consultants
or do it in-house. Mr. Jackman explained that this is the largest single-service
contract in the City so experts must be brought in. Some of the functions Tom
provided will be transferred to other staff members. He commented that this is an
unfortunate step that had to be taken in light of the current economic situation.
Chair Helland asked if staff had considered handling the solid waste billing inhouse along with other utilities bills. He thought that this would be a benefit for
customers. Ms. Fife-Ferris stated that it had not been considered as it has always
been included as part of the service and would be very expensive. Mr. Jackman
noted that staff could look into it. Councilmember Stokes commented that in the
last year and a half 85 positions have been cut in the City. To add something back
in that means hiring more people on creates problems. He agreed, however, that it
would be useful to look at the possibility of doing this. Chair Helland thought that
the cost could perhaps be covered by savings in the cost of the contract.
Commissioner Swenson referred to the current issues with Waste Management
and their employees being on strike and asked if that sort of thing would be
addressed in the contract. Ms. Fife-Ferris stated that it would not because the City
does not get involved with the contractor’s employment issues.
Commissioner Swenson commented on requiring service to all private roads. He
stated that on his street he would rather pull the tote out himself. Ms. Fife-Ferris
commented that this would not be a requirement if it wasn’t feasible or if
residents don’t want it, but the provider would be required to offer it where
possible.
Chair Helland requested that the presentation be emailed to the Commission.2
2
Commissioner Wang left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Councilmember Stokes commented that the chart distributed by Ms. Fife-Ferris
references a “new contractor”. He noted that it would not necessarily be a new
contractor. Ms. Fife-Ferris concurred and noted that this would be clarified.
Commissioner Cowan asked if bi-weekly pickup had been discussed. Ms. FifeFerris replied that it has been discussed and the City is planning on incorporating
a provision in the contract to look at that as an option. This would allow for a rate
reduction if the City does go to bi-weekly collection at any point. Ms. Fife-Ferris
stated that staff has not had time to determine if Bellevue’s customers would
accept that program. In Renton, where the City has moved to bi-weekly
collection, some neighborhoods have been very unhappy with it. She noted that
Bellevue used to have every-other-week organics collection and went to every
week because there were constant customer complaints because of confusion
relating to which week it would be collected. Staff will study this and see if it is
an option. Commissioner Cowan suggested that this could be an option for
customers that want it. Chair Helland suggested having a smaller can size which
could get to the same issue. Ms. Fife-Ferris noted that staff is planning on
incorporating a micro-can (a 10-gallon service provision) which would
significantly reduce the rate for those that use it.
6.
NEW BUSINESS - None
7.
DIRECTOR’S OFFICE REPORT - None
8.
CONTINUED ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
9.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
10.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.