Item N11* TIME APPROXIMATE 9:45 A.M. *
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 Division: County Administrator
Bulk Item: No X Staff Contact /Phone #: Rhonda Haag 453-8774
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction on operation and disposal rate in the Amended
and Restated Haul Out, Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Waste Management Inc. of Florida (WM)
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Agreement was executed by the parties on May 21, 2014 with an effective
date of October 1, 2014. Section 3.01 of the Agreement states that the operations and disposal fee is $84.50 per
ton. Under the prior agreement with WM, the operations and disposal rate increased due to Consumer Price
Index (CPI) adjustments (the disposal rates were $85.80 for FY 14, $84.52 for FY 13, and $83.11 for FY 12).
Waste Management asserts that there was a mistake in the final version of the contract and that the rate of
$87.15 is the correct rate since under the prior agreement the rate was increased to $85.80 for FY 14, as per the
CPI adjustment and that the contract should be revised to reflect this rate.
At the request of the Board, a memorandum analyzing the relevant legal issues with the contract is attached.
Discussion of this matter is held pursuant to Paragraph 47, Adjudication of Disputes or Disagreements, of the
Agreement. A contract amendment that would implement the Board's direction at the April meeting has been
drafted but not yet finalized. A copy of that draft is attached as a placeholder.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
8/21/13: Discussion and direction on solid waste management program and related contracts.
10/16/13: Presentation and discussion of the current offers from the solid waste vendors. 30 day extension to
negotiations authorized and more cost effective offers requested.
11/20/13: Presentation and discussion of the semi-final offers from the solid waste vendors. 3 week extension
to negotiations authorized and more cost effective offers requested.
12/11/13: Presentation and discussion of the final offers for solid waste and a potential incineration
demonstration project. BOCC authorized moving forward with drafting of the solid waste contracts and also
consideration of an incineration demonstration project in Ramrod.
02/19/14: Discussion on the incineration demonstration project and moving forward with a solicitation for
processing of yard waste. No formal vote taken.
03/19/14: Discussion, recommendation and direction on the County's yard waste processing. Vote to proceed
with RFP for yard waste processing.
5/21/14: The Board approved the Amended and Restated Haul Out, Operation and Maintenance Agreement
with Waste Management Inc. of Florida (WM)
04/15/15: The Board directed staff to bring back an agenda item to discuss the haul -out rate in the Amended
and Restated Haul Out, Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Waste Management Inc. of Florida
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
TOTAL COST: Currently Est. $75 Million over 10y�ars INDIRECT COST:
BUDGETED: Yes No _ DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: None
COST TO COUNTY: As stated above SOURCE OF FUNDS: 414 Fund
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required To be Presented
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # CAD # N-11
ADDITIONAL BACK-UP:
1. LEGAL MEMORANDUM dated May 12, 2015
2. AGENDA BACKUP, WRITTEN MATERIAL AND MINUTES FROM BRIEFINGS AND
PRESENTATIONS:
a.) N-6 BOCC 8/21/13
6. Discussion and direction on the solid waste management program and related contracts.
b.) T-6 BOCC 10/16/13
6. Discussion and direction on the waste management program and related contracts.
c.) U-8 BOCC 11/20/13
8. Discussion and presentation of final offers from the vendors for the solid waste
program and related contracts.
d.) P-5 BOCC 12/11/13
5. Discussion, recommendation, and direction or approval on the final offers from the
vendors for the solid waste program and related contracts.
e.) 0-7 BOCC 2/19/14
7. Discussion and update on the incineration demonstration project.
£) P-9 BOCC 3/19/14
9. Discussion, recommendation and direction on the County's yard waste processing.
3. Letters to Solid Waste Department re: CPI adjustments
4. Letter from Waste Management attorney re: Yard Waste redirection
5. Billing statements and corresponding material analysis report by materials
(WM January 2015; WM February 2015; WM March 2015)
6. Revised Amendment 1 to the Amended and Restated Haul -Out Agreement — scanned
copy of executed Amendment 1 received electronically on 5113115
7. Proposed draft Amendment 2 to the Amended and Restated Haul -Out Agreement
To: Mayor and Commissioners
From: Bob Shillinger, County Attorney'
Christine Limbert-Barrows, Assistant County Attorney
Date: May 12, 2015
Re: Amended and Restated Monroe County Haul -Out, Transfer Stations Operations
and Maintenance Agreement
The Board asked for an opinion analyzing the relevant principles of law that are at issue
with respect to the Amended and Restated Monroe County Haul -Out, Transfer Stations
Operations and Maintenance Agreement ("the contract") with Waste Management of
Florida, Inc., ("WM"). The matter at issue centers on a disagreement as to whether or
not the per ton rate explicitly stated in the contract -- $84.50 — is the rate agreed to by
the parties. WM asserts that the rate should be $87.15.' Staff contends that the $84.50
figure reflects the will of both parties because that number is expressly stated in the text
of the contract, which was extensively reviewed by both sides prior to Commission
approval. Staff further relies upon the fact that the $84.50 figure was repeatedly
mentioned in multiple presentations" to the Board during the discussions leading up to
the approval of the contract on May 21, 2014. The short answer is, absent an
agreement to resolve this dispute, the County could find itself in expensive, protracted
litigation the outcome of which would be far from certain.
As a preliminary matter, contracts are created when parties mutually agree to do or not
do some specific thing."' The making of a contract depends not on the parties having
meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing." Regardless, parties to a
contract may always alter the language set forth in the text of the agreement by mutual
agreement" provided that the modification is also supported by new consideration."
Applying these principles of law to the instant matter, the BOCC and WM may lawfully
alter, modify, or amend any of the terms specifically set forth in the text of the subject
contract if: a) both parties agree to the modified terms; and b) there is some bargained
for exchange of value. In short, analysis of whether or not the $84.50 rate stated in the
contract was a mistake would become irrelevant if the Commission votes to amend the
contract in a manner that is also acceptable to WM.
On the other hand, should the Board wish to maintain the $84.50 per ton figure stated in
the contract, be advised that WM may file suit seeking "reformation", in essence a
rewrite of the agreement. While the County would have a strong defense against a
claim for reformation, the outcome would turn on an examination of the parties' intent
Lr,JY� f1321,,i&ttL�,,, o", 413,1114111 t si ( t%,
Al", t
{tl -'- WAOAINIVK 14, U4S t dig s
including all written presentations and verbal discussions of the contract, not just the
explicit text of the agreement.""
Reformation of a contract is an appropriate remedy when, due to mutual mistake of both
parties, the instrument as drawn does not accurately express the true intentions or
agreement of the parties! The theory of reformation on grounds of mistake is to
reform the agreement to reflect what the parties would have agreed to had there been
no mistake." Where the alleged mistaken writing is the product of the parties' mutual
mistake or the unilateral mistake on the part of one party with inequitable conduct by the
other, the writing should be reformed to accurately reflect the parties' agreement."
A mistake is mutual for purpose of reformation when the parties agree to one thing and
then, by scrivener's error or inadvertence, express something different in the written
instrument."' Thus, in order to constitute a ground for reformation, the mistake must be
the same mistake made by all parties to the document.!"
In such a case, the focus would be on the intent of the parties, not just the text of the
written agreement. Evidence beyond the written documents would be admissible to
determine the intent of both parties."" Such evidence would most certainly include all of
the presentations made to the Commission, all written communications between and
among the parties, past conduct between the parties, and could conceivably include
testimony from individual Commissioners as to their respective thought processes
behind their respective vote.""
In order to prevail on a claim for reformation, WM would need to establish grounds for
reformation by clear and convincing evidence," a higher than normal standard of proof.
However, given the discussion of the topic at the April 2015 BOCC meeting, that
standard would not be impossible for WM to meet.
The County's defense would be based upon the text of the agreement as well as the
presentations regarding the per ton rate to the Board. The County would argue that the
mistake was unilateral on the part of WM, not mutual. Under contract law, a unilateral
mistake is not grounds for reformation.'"' The rationale for precluding the reformation of
a unilateral mistake is that, in this circumstance, there was no meeting of the minds in
the formation of the contract and thus there is no contract to reform.'"" Where an
instrument is written as one party understands it, and not as the other party understands
it, there is no ground for reformation.'" Instead, a mistake on one side may be a ground
for "rescission". which essentially means voiding the contract."'" Rescission would place
the County in the position of starting over again. In that circumstance, the Board would
have the discretion to either negotiate with a vendor of its choosing including but not
limited to WM or seek bids under the competitive bidding process.'
In conclusion, given the heightened burden of proof that WM would have to satisfy as a
plaintiff seeking reformation, the County would start from a position of advantage. WM
would have to overcome the written text of the agreement as well as the repeated public
presentations regarding the $84.50 rate. However, given the evidence likely to be
introduced, WM would have a legitimate chance of satisfying that heightened burden of
proof. Regardless of outcome, the litigation would be expensive, time consuming, and a
divisive distraction for the County.
The analysis set forth above represents a step back from that which I verbally
articulated at the April 2015 BOCC meeting. In discussions with staff as part of the
preparation of this item, it was determined that although the presentations to the Board
regarding the per ton rate were consistently $84.50, the calculations regarding the
annual solid waste assessment rates were based upon other numbers. Staffs
revelation is material to the analysis and necessitated this revision.
' Under the undisputed terms of the contract, the number serves as a baseline for future increases based
upon the Consumer Price Index at intervals specified in the agreement.
" See back up documentation to the AIS.
Kislak v. Kreedian. 95 So.2d 510, 515 (Fla. 1957).
See, e.g., Joe Robbie v. City of Miami. 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1984).
"Vanguard Const. Co.. Inc. v. Lewis State Bank, 348 So.2d 72, 74 (Fla. 5`' DCA 1977) (citations omitted).
v' Newkirk Const. Co. v. Gulf County, 366 So.2d 813, 815 (Fla. 151 DCA 1979). In its simplest terms,
consideration is an exchange of something of value. Crescent Miami Center. LLC v. Fla. Dept. of Rev.,
903 So.2d 913, 919 (Fla. 2005).
"" See, Avers v. Thompson, 536 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ("Parol evidence [evidence
outside of the written documents] is admissible in a reformation action in equity for the purpose of
demonstrating that the true intent of the parties was something other than that expressed in the written
instrument").
""Providence Square Assn. Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla. 1987) (A court of equity has
the power to reform a written instrument where, due to a mutual mistake, the instrument as drawn does
not accurately express the true intention or agreement of the parties to the instrument.... a court in no way
alters the agreement of the parties. Instead, the reformation only corrects the defective written instrument
so that it accurately reflects the true terms of the agreement actually reached); Goodall v. Whispering
Woods Ctr.. L.L.C., 990 So. 2d 695, 699 (Fla. 41h DCA 2008) (citations omitted).
'x Kartzmark v. Kartzmark, 709 So. 2d 583, 585 (Fla. 41h DCA 1998).
" Kolski ex rel. Kolski v. Kolski, 731 So. 2d 169,173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
A Providence Square Ass'n. Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987); BrandsMart U.S.A. of West
Palm Beach. Inc. v. DR Lakes, Inc., 901 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4 h DCA 2005).
w" Matter of 6804 East, Inc., 42 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Fla 1984).
Al
Avers, 536 So. 2d at 1154.
"' See, e.g., League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Fla. House of Representatives. 132 So.3d 135 (Fla.
2013) (Florida's legislative privilege recognized for the first time by the Supreme Court but found to be
less than absolute; Court utilized a balancing test in determining whether or not to compel individual
legislators to testify about their thought processes on redistricting); see also, City of Pompano v.
Swerdlow Lightspeed Management Co., 942 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4d' DCA 2006) (recognizing that legislative
privilege would not extend to non -legislative aspects surrounding a contract). Even if the privilege were
found to exist, it would be up to each individual Commissioner whether to assert it or waive it.
'" Reformation of a contract is proper if the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the
contract is the product of (1) the parties' mutual mistake, or (2) a mistake on the part of one party coupled
with the inequitable conduct on the part of the other party. Bone & Joint Treatment Centers of Am. v.
HealthTronics Surgical Servs., Inc., 114 So. 3d 363, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The "clear and convincing"
standard is "an intermediate standard of proof between the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard
used in most civil cases, and the 'beyond a reasonable doubt standard' of criminal cases." Morey v.
Everbank, 93 So.3d 482, 489 n. 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The clear and convincing standard requires that
the evidence "be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,
without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Id. (quoting Reid v. Estate
of Sonder, 63 So.3d 7, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted)). An appellate court "may not overturn a
trial court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence unless the finding is unsupported by record
evidence, or as a matter of law, no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing."
Morey, 93 So.3d at 489 (quoting Reid, 63 So.3d at 10). Bone & Joint Treatment Centers of Am. v.
HealthTronics Surgical Servs., Inc., 114 So. 3d 363, 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).
'"1 Kolski, 731 So. 2d at 173.
xv" Continental Ca. Co. v. City of Ocala, 127 So. 894 (Fla. 1930); Langley v. Irons Land Development Co.,
114 So. 769 (Fla. 1927) (Rescission of a contract is an appropriate remedy when there is no meeting of
the minds between the parties, i.e. one party believe that it is one term while the other believes it is
another term.)
'"0i Watkins v. DeAdamich, 187 So. 2d 369, 371 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1966) (Citing Horne v. J. C. Turner Cypress
Lumber Co., 1908, 55 Fla. 690, 45 So. 1016; Indian River Manufacturinq Co. v. Wooten, 1908, 55 Fla.
745, 46 So. 185; Hopkins v. Mills, Fla.1934, 116 Fla. 550,156 So. 532; Blumberg v. American Fire and
Casualty Co., Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 182, and 45 Am.Jur. Reformation of Instruments, Sec. 78 p. 631.)
xlx Watkins, 187 So. 2d at 371.
Under § 2-347(e)(5)f of the Monroe County code, the competitive bidding process is not required to be
utilized when contracting for solid waste services.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMNMIOpUM
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Data August 21, 2013 Division: Cmmw d. .
Hulk Item: No „�_ County Ader;'.+:�
Staff Coutsct /Phonic #: g 453, .M
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction an the solid waste
related contracts. proBmm and
ITEM BACKGROUND: Sniff has researched and vffiioua�, the solid waste
n°u0°� In'aste and ,and will prat these options to the BOCC for discuasi�. The
current solid waste collection agteemefs cq3iro in August 2014 and staff is looking for
direction on how to proceed,
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRAMAGREEMNT CHANGES: Not applicable
STAFF RECOMWEMATIONS:
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST:
D'ERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: NZA
BUDGETED: Yes —No_
COST TO COUNTY :_ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: _
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yea _ No
_&. AMOUNT PER MONTi� Year
APPROVED BY: Co
�Y AY O1V®JPue�chasiag Risk Maoagemeat �_
DOCUMENTATION: Included_ Not
Required
i[SPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # D # - -
OUNTY o MONROE�K� tiT;
MVWW %--hR=WA2XMO
Rabat & MMhlgw, Coomy Attoraey�*
Ped&o J Maeado. Awlatset sty 1► ••
Susan M. (ifimday. Assistant Caasty AnOmWee
Natileeoe W. Cessd. Assistant County
CynddaL Hen. Assl Coumy p
Christine Ihobeft4knewo, Assistant County Antsucy s•
Daek V. Hawsr4 Assistant Conoty AttorneyLiss ri
3teM T. �WIMMO , Assistant County AU=W
00 BoadCadffi d b City. CawWA Lord Qovt Law
From: Bob Shiliinger, County Attorney
Cc: Roman Gasteai, County Administrator
Re: Renewal Options for Solid Waste contracts
Date: August 12, 2013
r^—
•`� Mayor Geoene Ncogeot, District 2
Mayor I'm Ten, Heather Cazn&@M DAWd 3
DaRq L KoUuq , Disbict I
David Rice, District 4
SYh k J. Maphy. District S
OM8 of the Canty Attorney
111112* Stseet, Suite 409
Key Went, FL 33040
(303) 2M3470 —Phone
(303) M3516—Fa:
Question presented: Whether the County may lawfully exercise its rights under the
existing franchise agreements with solid waste collectors to renew those contracts or
must those contracts be put out for bid?
Short answer The County Commission may lawfully exercise the renewal options for
each franchise agreement; however, the Board cannot include any additional renewal
options in those contracts under the current code.
Background and Analysis: The County contracts with four entities to provide
residential and commercial solid waste (trash) collection services for the Lower, Middle,
and Upper Keys as well as the Ocean Reef Club. These contracts are virtually identical
so will be referred to collectively.
The current solid waste contracts were entered into in 2004. Each contract was for the
maximum five year term allowed under § 21-71(c) of the Monroe County Code, plus the
option for an additional five year renewal term. In 2009, the contracts were amended to
Include a new five year term with an additional five year renewal optional term. The first
five year term of the contract, as amended in 2009, expires in August 2014.
Like many local governments both in Florida and throughout the country, Monroe
County has historicallyi addressed solid waste disposal through franchise agreements,
which the Courts" have described as follows:
The holder of a franchise, in the commercial sense here involved, generally
performs functions of a quasi -governmental nature in that such a franchise is the
privilege of engaging under governmental authority In that 'which does not
belong to the citizens ... generally by common right.' [Citation omitted.] It is a
contract with a sovereign authority by which the grantee Is licensed to conduct
such a business within a particular area and it may prohibit others from engaging
In the same business within the prescribed area for a given period of time.
These solid waste franchise agreements are essentially agreements with private entities
serving as public utilities."i A "public utility" is generally defined as "a privately owned
and operated business whose services are so essential to the general public as to
Justify the grant of special franchises ... in consideration of which the owners must
serve all persons who apply, without discrimination. It is always a virtual monopoly."w
The granting of exclusive franchise agreements has been justified due to the enormous
Investment in capital infrastructure costs necessary to provide the utility service.
Monroe County has historically treated its solid waste franchise agreements as utility
type agreements exempt from the competitive bidding procedures set forth in the
County Code. Under Florida law, the Commission is vested with considerable latitude
in deciding which contracts require competitive bidding and which do not for "[t]here is
no common law rule requiring public agencies to let contracts through competitive bids.
In the absence of specific constitutional or statutory requirements, a public agency has
no obligation to establish a bidding procedure and may contract in any manner not
arbitrary or capricious.'
In March of 2012, however, the County Commission made substantial revislonel to its
purchasing code. See Ordinance 06-2012. As part of that revision, the exceptions to
the competitive bidding requirements were amended to provide more specificity
regarding when those exceptions would be triggered. Those exceptions are set forth in
§ 2-347(e)(5) of the Code. Specifically, § 2-347(e)(5)0 exempts from competitive
bidding "all purchases of services controlled by the Public Service Commission (PSC)
including but not limited to utility/local telephone services." The former version of 2-347
did not contain the phrase "services controlled by the Public Service Commission" as a
qualifier that limited which utility services were exempt from competitive bidding."M
Stated differently, Ordinance 08-2012 did not include solid waste franchise agreements
among those that are exempt from competitive bidding whereas the prior version of 2-
347 had been interpreted to Include such agreements among those types of utility
services that were exempt from the competitive bidding process.
As stated above, only those utility agreements falling under the jurisdiction of the PSC
are exempt from competitive bidding under the current version of § 2-347(e)(5)b.
According to its enabling statutes, the PSC only has jurisdiction over certain water and
2
x,a7777 .a,n, M74 u 777u,�,—, w� �—
waste water utill ies� telephone utilities; `as well as gas and electric utilities with certain
exceptions' The PSC does not have jurisdiction over solid waste disposal as the
Florida Legislature has vested the sixty seven counties with primary jurisdiction over
that service.
ml
In sum, the 2012 revision to Section 2-347(e)(5)b as drafted, had the effect of excluding
solid waste franchise agreements from the type of utility services which are exempt from
the competitive bidding requirements of the County Code. However, I found nothing In
the legislative history of the Ordinance 06-2012 which suggests that the BOCC
consciously intended to omit solid waste services from the class of agreements which
are exempt from competitive bidding. In other words, it would appear that this exclusion
was unintentional.
Options: The BOCC has three options for moving forward.
Option 1— Exercise the Five Year Renewal Term. The BOCC may lawfully exercise
the option to extend the existing solid waste contracts for another five years. Because
the existing contracts, which were entered into in 2009, contain an option for renewal,
the 2012 amendments to the code cannot unilaterally effect the validity of that provision
of the contracts without violating the impairment of contracts provisions of the U.S.
and Florida Constitutions. Accordingly, based upon the County Code as it existed in
2009 when the contract was amended, the BOCC has the discretion to exercise the five
year renewal option that exists in each of the current solid waste agreements.
However, If that renewal option is exercised, the extended agreement cannot include
any extension beyond the five year" optional term that was Incorporated into in the
2009 agreements, absent a change in the purchasing code.
Option 2 — Amend the Code. The BOCC always has the option of amending its code
pursuant to the processes set forth in chapter 125, Florida Statutes to affect future
agreements. If it is the desire of the Commission to maintain its historical custom and
practice of treating solid waste franchise agreements as utility agreements which a`re"
exempt from competitive bidding requirements, I would recommend inserting clarifying
language into the definitions section set forth at 2-346 and in the competitive bidding
exceptions set forth 2-347(e)(5). Adopting such an amendment is not a prerequisite to
exercising the fire year extension option so an amendment could be adopted either
before or after that option is exercised, if at all.
If the Board decides to amend the code, it may also want to consider revisiting other
provisions of the code that relate to the solid waste franchise agreements since
substantial portions of solid waste collection ordinances, which are currently codified In
chapter 21 of the Monroe County Code, remain largely unchanged since 1989. For
example, is a five year maximum tern required by § 21-71(c) still commercially
reasonable or would a longer term lead to more favorable terms for the County?
Option 3 — Put the Contracts out for Bid. As always, the BOCC retains the discretion
to put the solid waste franchise agreements out for bid. This option remains despite the
exceptions from competitive bidding set forth in the code and falls within the broad
discretion of the Board.
1 The County adopted a comprehensive solid waste disposal ordinance in 1989, which mandated that
owners and occupants of improved properly use the County's solid waste franchise contractor for the
area where the Property was located. See, § 9, Ordinance 033-1889. This ordinance is currently codified
in chapter 21 of the Monroe County Code and remains largely unchanged since 1989. Prior solid waste
franchise ordinances Include Ordinances 09-1974 and 10-1077, as well as chapter 63-1631, Laws of
Florida (special act authorizing Monroe County to grant five year solid waste franchise agreements).
" West Coast Disposal Services, Ina Smith,143 So.2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). cart den.148 So.2d
279 (Fla 1982); see also, Jackson -Skew Co. v. Jacksonville AvlaBon Auth., 510 F.Supp.2d 691. 719
�M.D.Fla. 2007).
See, e.g., Bennett Elechlc Ca v. West Side Sanitation, Inc.. 11 F.Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D.Fla.1998); and
United Sanitation Services, Inc. v. Tampa, 302 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1974); see also, McquUlen's
Municipal Corporations, § 24.251. In United Sanitetion, the Court observed:
The collection of garbage Is certainly a useful, indeed an indispensable, part of urban society.
,The Private business of its collection, however, is not, nor has It ever been, akin in any way to
ordinary" examples of private enterprise - the selling of shoes, the repair of automobiles, or the
selling of motel rooms. As the uses, from the time when the business was referred to as
'scavenging' and those who conducted it as "scaven era" until the
clearly established, the "enterprise" of garbage collection is one of thosereunlqua calave lings zed and
are subject to the plenary power of govemmenL Unlike virtually every other enterprise,calng the
"business" may not only be regulated, but in fact exclusively performed - as an essential "public service" - by municipalities or other governmental subdivisions, even if such a decision f a
results to the complete preclusion of private facilities for the same use. 302 So.2d at 436.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
388.Interotate United Corp.; Canteen Corp., 369 So.2d 391, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also; A.G.O. 71-
w Prior to the 2012 changes, the exceptions to the competitive bidding requirements set forth § 2-347(e)
Heads:
This section applies to all contracts for services (excluding services covered by the Consultants'
Competitive Negotiations Ad (F.S. 6287.065), utility/local telephone services, legal servk M 4W
Insurance policies), goods, and public works, (excluding change orders authorized under a
lawfully executed county/contractor contact) that are in accordance with generally accepted
yr The exceptions accountinsePrinciples, forth inexpected4((5 Trost $25,000 or more.
a. Professional service covered by the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act (F.S. §287.055).
Other Professional services may be exempted by the SOCC from the competitive bidding process
when price Is only a minor concern compared to qualitative considerations;
b. All purchases of services controlled by the public service commission Including but not limited
to utility/local telephone services;
a Cellular telephone services; on -going payments and fees for maintenance and support of
existing software technology which has been purchased in accordance with existing procurement
requirements; software packages for personal computers approved by the county's technical
services department;
d. Legal services, lobbying s Interpreter services court re
services; and rP porter services, and advertising
e. Change orders authorized under a lawfully executed county/contractor contract
vs See endnote vi.
F.S. 367.011 and F.S. 367.022.
F.S. 365.01 and F.S. 364.011.
id F.S. 306.04.
4
F.S. 403.70e and F.S.125.01(k).
Art I, 910, CI.1, U.S. Const
1d1 Art I, § 10, Florida Const (Igoe).
'" § 21 71(c) limits the term of a solld waste agreement to no more than ftve years
65 gallon recycle carts purchased by vendors $1,500,000
RecyclingNew Terms for Haul out and . m
decreaseand similar
III
Phase - in serkes
1 4 r�extension =2018
Haul out - 2
20At
Terms.
9 Not yet negotiated
Incineration
Recycle Income —guaranteed
D. Economies of ScaleA
Key West and Islamorada issuing solicitations soon
Potential Rate Savings to County for Residential and
businesses
E. Apply local preference per code
Do we want guaranteed i 1recyclablesi
b). Portion of BOCC Minutes 8/21/13 Re: Item N6:
"Item N6 Rhonda Haag, Sustainability Program Manager, • Bob Shillinger, County Attorney and Roman
Gastesi, County Administrator addressed the Board concerning the discussion and direction on the solid
waste management program and related contracts. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Carruthers and seconded by Commissioner Murphy to amend the code as necessary to allow for a 10 year
contract. Motion carried unanimously.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Murphy and seconded by Commissioner Rice
to also amend the current Purchasing Code. Roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Commissioner Carruthers No
Commissioner Kolhage Yes
Commissioner Murphy Yes
Commissioner Rice Yes
Mayor Neugent Yes
Motion carried. "
BOARD OF COUNTY CONONEBS
AGENDA MM SUDD"Iff
ur � � i �. w rr� r�' � r�r �r1liri� i_irririts ;kr,.t ulrr,.
� ii_ni r. i � - -�ri tLarirk' i rssrr.rr .,.Lnj.
AGENDA rMd WORDING: Diamom and di tWm on the solid waste p W= and mb ted
cnnftadL
rMd BACKGROUND: Staff has rme ndW and finaliud msa&dm for solid wade p:og= and
aad wM pro= these op&m to the BOCC bar discnasim
PR MOUE RII:LEYANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTB MAG Ir CHANGES: Not applicable
STAFF RECONIIVI MATIONS:
TOTAL COST: MIRECT COST: BUDGRI'&D: Yes _Ido _
COST TO COMM.— SOURCE OF FERM:
RZVZM)ZPBODUCMG: Yea _ No X_ AMOUNT PER MONTR— Yew--.
APPROVED BY: County mg— OIV1 Mumbesiag Risk Mwommad
DOC[AV MAMON: Included Not Rawked
ISPOSITION: AcamAnzm#smi.w
1 ti EXHIBIT
�r
� vr,
°l 11 o illl t '1` tS,>• County
WA I
I
0
+ n
i
• Lower Keys,Waste Management Services
• Middle Keys, Marathon Garbage
• Upper Keys, Keys Sanitary
• Ocean Reef Club Area, Ocean Reef Club Inc,
FHaul out %lit September \P 6
• Receive and process solid waste and recyclable materials
delivered to the transfer station facilities
• Dispose materials at an operator -owned disposal site in
Broward (Waste Management Services.)
• Automatically extended to September 30,2018.
• Can be amended with new terms with mutual agreement of
parties (Waste Mgmt)
CURRENT RATES COMPARISON
Annual amount paid per resident for $4 4 /year
solid waste.
Monthly amount paid per resident for
solid waste.
Cost to resident per pickup.
Annual collection fee paid by
County/City to the collection
vendors per household,
$311,67 month
o5 /pickup Lower Keys
. 4/pickup Middle/Upper
2 ` , /yr. Lower Keys
$217,80 /yr. Middle Keys
71 & 4 l yr, Upper Keys
Monthly collection fee paid by County $19, I Imo. Lower Keys
I City to the collection vendors per 1 ,13 Imo. Middle Keys
household. I8.22 No. Upper Keys
Haul out rate paid for Solid Waste,
Haul out rate paid by for Recycling.
Tipping fee at the transfer stations.
ME
a
HE
$84,52Iton l % higher o Inc.in Collection
73, 2 I ton Inc./in Collection
`73.5Iton
Franchise Fee paid to County/ City
Carts purchased byVendors I Recycle cart
$165,90 $63.45 to
Miami landfill
I%
Trash cart I Garbage Cart
(City bought
recycle cart)
I
r, �,':, lt} s �{ {\S. VI �1 �}jii' f.l� �S}l �( �� {4 SYearExtensions
9 Solid Waste Collection
• Recycling
Option I Ilik UpmTo a Year Extension,A11 EnL
2019
0 Solid Waste Collection — Extend S years 09130119
Recycling Extend I year
Haul -out — Extend 3 years
I'll 6; 14,1r,
Collection extend 2 years
Haul out terminates 2016
Recycling terminates 2018
09130/ 19
09130/ 19
09130/ 16
09130116
0913 0118
Option 2A:Acrossathe,Board I 0,YearTimlil
Extensions
• Recycling 09/30/23
Solid Waste Collection 09/30/24
Haul -out 09/30126
Option 2B: Up,to a I 0,Year Extension,A11
End
2024
Recycling — Extend 6 years 09/30124
Solid Waste Collection — Extend 10 yrs. 09130/24
Haul -out — Extend 8 years 09130124
Igo
11
t
t tlt�i't�6,
t
JV11U
A
Vl
UU (1(
III•,
U,`t, 1i tc slffi+
Collection
SolicitHaul out & Recycle in 2 years
fll now phased implementation
BPhased
ht11 }ed implementation based on contract
termination dates.
0 2014 termination date for collection
2016 termination date for haul out
2018 termination date for recycling
`! {s 1 b � 5 t . � ,`�I, t• lu �ttfi ?. ,{ `it t� 1 S; 1 �� :�i� 4 t t� ,fs:, i3
Composting/ Mulching/ Grinding/ Incineration
Guaranteed Recyclables Income to County
Lower rates, increased franchise fees to County, additional
services, etc.
2.
t,` e l '{ d o r can purchase capital
Ij) pi1 as items 1 't ti' is needed for business.
Income from Sale of Recyclables
j
Compressed Natural Gas for vendor trucks — Sustainabilit
P Y
Potential uses for Crushed Glass — SustainabilitY item
} t
value: $I.S Million
i,` ' II I �;�, �t��, 1 't � 7 1 1f, If ' � �� tU• :`; Ib ' tF' i* r{ ``4 try s, lad? �,: ,�r =�4' r it it 4 � Il ° r,, tt �! F
Vendors waiveCPI's 3 in 10 years.Value:
$3,4 Million
r
Cumulative
Expense
of 7 years r
2 i' .� , i�s� \i�' , � >� � {�( �i; 3 l�( ``•��, la �} v U��. r�s � > , �}�4. �I }S �'' ��#1' ? �t Ii �{ ��, `! �t�'; it �� �l ��� (G t4 la �S is tt. G � `��' ! , IS t %�{
Cumulative Expense
• years •
cost over 10 years: $302�000
avoidance:
Vendor forgives capital debt
Cost the payment • at end of
current contract year 2016: $467)270
tt
1� iS ( \/4y 'S�P` (4, � I17 �k +i i; l % !(, ��4 �II II Si fi ; , !�t t}}* �lRl}, � �' \ .� i I . •�%' {t�, r t� li U �f ,ti��li �1t tt �U li (i 11� Ut {4 i! I{,:
2. R S, d'�1���4li�1�i �\tt ia;}d44� i {{� �\tCPI increases in $ o...ii 10 yeal
Vendor waives CPI's last 3 of 10 years. Value: $69,000
years
Cumulative Expense of 7 f
Vendor offers fe rt 40% of revenue vsS Y j ' from 4 it sale of recyclable
materials when 4' n average market value $110000 / "t. `oi Il it
a Current average market value = $11.54.
b) Value of Offer.
c) Previous average market values.
$87.30 $83.41 $83.57 $117.62 $116.22 $67.43 $106.31 $129.59 $99.76 $99.89
@$118,000, Conditions can vary.
c) Required Annual Increases.
All
Disallow fuel surcharges opass them on to the commercial
11 11,4r
Savings $ 11 8,000/yr. @ 10 years $ 1418 Million
Savings
Allow only e 7 yrs,)
Savings $10.1 Million
Total Cost 10 years @ ® %, waiving 3 years $2.7Million
Redirection of 3 County solid waste employees
e
I ngs $1.5 Million
NEW COST SAVING OPTION:
LOWER KEYSYARDWASTE DEMO PROJECT
III III ii
Vendor offers not enough to avoid rate increases
Hurricane debris removal is expensive
Demo project: local incineration and grinding of yard waste
3r. Demonstration project — I to 2 years long.Test conditions
fo r:
Cost
Tonnage
End user market
C. Air Curtain Burner readily permitte'
Complies with state / federal regulations for burning, safety, etc.
D. Emissions are controlled by the design of the fire box
E, Potential to reuse ash = recycle credits.
R Issue Solicitation at end of Demo Project for long term
MM-
' IIi 1,C iZ, � 11 i t `" "At, Il 5 3 it
a Savings. $12.50 I ton vs. Haul out
b) 2,000 tons @ $12.50 = $25,0001year $50,000 over 2 years
Incineration of palm fronds & some ti e hardwoods@
$601ton
a Savings. $24.501ton vs. Haul out
b) 10,000 tons @ $24.50 = $245,0001year = $490,000 over 2 years
111 �1 �11111 -, 7 - MO.,
so
•� 00% of the yard trash.
� � �
, � � � � � � �
� � � �
� �
L77"';
��tIIV«i �� t a 1 � � � � � � �l
on
A
o
MONROE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
ADOPTED FY14 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
RATES
Amount
Item
Collection
Recycling
Disposal
Total
Per
Month
$292.00
PREVIOUS RATE (FY1995 to FY2009)
117.00
41.00
134.00
292.00
24.33
ADDED TO RATE FOR FY2010 and FY2011
$50.65
Collection costs ($208.65 - $158)
47.19
3.46
50.65
$20.00
Disposal costs ($154 - $134)
20.00
20.00
$0.25
Tax Collector Fee @ $8,000/yr.
0.24
0.01
0.25
$2.70
HHW & e-recycle Coor. @ $84,9351yr.
2.56
0.13
2.69
$1.11
HHW & e-recycle waste Haul Out @ $35,000/yr.
1.11
1.11
$29.29
Fund stabilization
9.76
9.76
9.76
29.28
$396.00
RATE for FY2010 & FY2011
177
54
165
396
33
FY2014 (effective 101112011)
$19.50
Collection costs ($228.15 - $208,65)
18.14
1.37
19.50
$6.31
Disposal costs ($160,31-$154)
6.31
6.31
$1.03
Added one HHW & e-recycle staff @ $30,831/yr.
0.77
0.26
1.03
$0.50
Increase in HHW & e-recycle waste Haul Out @ $15,000/yr.
0.50
0.50
6 -
��i� ��
$404
$8
h �r�� t�l�li�<ztic�r� rc���;iic�r�
Annual Assessment
Annual increase ($432-$396)
yr-- , ,
�
$189
C, 3
$50
yr-- 3
�
$165
i100
$404
$33.67
$0.67
Monthly increase
FY12 to FY14 TIPPING FEE (effective 101112011)
Amount
$120,00
$123.50
$3.50
FY10 and FY11
per ton beginning FY12
per ton increase to cover commercial collection & haul out costs
$0.175
GENTS ADD'L.
PER POUND
As of 10/1/2010, the City of Key West tipping fee is $165.97
BOCC 10/16/13•
Item T6 Discussion and direction on the waste management program and related contracts.
The following individuals addressed the Board: Bruce Williams, representing Advanced Disposal
and Greg Sullivan, representing Waste Management. Rhonda Haag, Sustainability Program
Manager; Christine Limbert-Barrows, Assistant County Attorney and Roman Gastesi, County
Administrator. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Rice and seconded by
Commissioner Murphy to recommend Option #1 and for staff to come back to the Commission in
30 days with something that's acceptable or we will go out for solicitation. Roll call vote was taken
with the following results:
Commissioner Carruthers
No
Commissioner Kolhage
Yes
Commissioner Murphy
Yes
Commissioner Rice
Yes
Mayor Neugent
Yes
Motion carried.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: November 20, 2013 Division: County Administrator
Bulk Item: No X Department: County Administrator
Staff Contact /Phone #: Rhonda Haaa, 453-8774
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and presentation of final offers from the vendors for the
solid waste program and related contracts.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Staff has finalized negotiations for the solid waste program and contracts
with the current vendors, and will present the final offers to the BOCC for discussion.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
08/21/13: After discussion and direction of agenda item on the solid waste program and related
contracts, BOCC directed staff to draft proposed changes to the Monroe County Code.
9/4/2013: BOCC scheduled a public hearing for 3:00 p.m. on 9/17/13 in Marathon to consider adoption
of amendments to ordinances related to solid waste services.
09/17/23: BOCC approves two Code amendments, one to extend the allowable term of solid waste
collection agreements from 5 to 10 years and the other to provide an option to exempt solid waste
services from competitive bidding.
10/I 1/13: The two ordinances (Ordinance No. 034-2013 and Ordinance No. 035-2013) are filed with
the Department of State and become effective.
10/16/13: BOCC presentation and discussion of the current offers from the solid waste vendors and
options relating to solid waste services. BOCC authorized a 30 day extension to continue negotiations
to allow for more cost effective offers to be negotiated.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: Not applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty OMB/Purchasing Risk Management _
DOCUMENTATION: Included Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # CAD #
I
1 . SolidWaste Collection= September 30, 2014
Lower Keys,Waste Management Services
Middle Keys, Marathon Garbage
Upper Keys, Keys Sanitary
Ocean Reef Club Area, Ocean Reef Club Inc,
r" 't• �#t }vts }SS t l0 (� �, �� `sr :.t' �� ii# 4#4 it* �� i is. i{£�." '{� }; s'}f }�4� �i 't�f# } ("��
3111HUMS31110FRERNESENMEEME
'COLLECTION: Extend 10 years 2014 — 2024
Value: $1.S Million
111,1111 1p llp;llpil
pickups and servicing of County roll -off containers
Value : $ 150,000 annually, Over 10 years: $0 - $ 1.S M
ii
di''NWIT11111111T 1111 I All
HAUL OUT: Extend 8 years 2016 — 2024
i51 it ii iZ�+ } l fr It' fr i, M,{;.
Cumulative Expense of 4 years Residential CPI @ 2.5% =Million
Previous 3 years of waivers expense yrs. 8,9,10 $ 5.4 Million
3, Vendor still forgives capital debt
Cost avoidance of payment due at end of 20 16: $467,271
\1' j11'11 ( } {
... �. Z I :IMMMIIII
SA. Vendor, offers composting 10,000 tons in Okeechobee
$8 LSO/ton
$3,02/ton savings = $30,200/year over 2 years: $ 60,400
OR
SIB. Vendor offers incineration of 10,000 tons at Key Largo
$60.00/ton
A $24,50/ ton savings = $245,000/year over 2 years $490,000
A. Vpndnr switches to Cnmnrpqsed Natural Gas as trucks are
replaced — Sustainability Item
7.Vendor provides "Enspire" tracking system
Tracl(s solid waste, recycling, etc. per facility & more
$87 30
Bill AM a - =0 Is i go
��- } 4 ���� a�t r .F,i, ,�, 11� �� J `ir ��• ss , f�f l � 4d �� .c�S ,} 4� 4 �� I i! {;`. �'i f ij ��: � r{�! ��� ,,
waivesVendor now , ,
formerly6 $2539260
Vendor i , , ,
119
Equals estimated $101 ton rebate
j Also offers share of revenue if recycle market improves
a Vendor previously offered 40/ of revenue from sale of recyclable
materials when average market value > $ 110.00 I ton
Current average market value = $11.54.
Previous average market values.
$83.41 $83.57 $117.62 $116.22 $67.43 $106.31 $129.59 $99.76 $99.89
1. Cumulative CPI Increases over 10 yeari.,
Saved a total of $6.3 Million the past 30 days
All vendors — waive fuel surcharges
Haulout: Composting $30,000 /yr, for 2 yrs,
Haulout: Key Largo burning $240,000/yr, for 2 yrs,
Recycling: $50,000/year for 10 yrs,
zo I: Mali Oil �1
Recycle Carts
Waiver of capital debt fee:
$ 1.3 Mi I H o n
Million
4. CurrentVendor Offers do not yet meet goal of "Maintal
or lower rates paid by Residents"
Amount 1bove does not include increases to commerciol fees,
$3,15
lllglllq�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IliqI ligilliq
111 11 Will I 51 K ! lI II 1I I III I lI II 1 11 11 III I lI 11 .9 1 1 111 lIill
= .112M
2�
$5.54 $3.85 $5.68 $3.95 $,031 $9.58 $0.57 $9.84 $10.08
1111111 IqI IIIII� ll�pI I
MIN1111113NNMENGNMIMM
1AMERAI
1. Local burning in Upper Keys (W/M) 10 yrs.
2. Local burning in Lower Keys (Krause) 10 yrs,,
4. Redirection of 3 County solid waste staff
S. Consider $ 1 /yard increase to commercial accounts
under the 4 collection areas (in lieu of allowing fuel
surcharges to businesses)
$1/ yard increase from $15,37 to $16,37 /yard
b) Residential Assessment rises from $404 to $449
KeyWest rate is $14.36/yard (issuing an RFP to seek lower rates).
d) Islamorada rate is $14,661yard (but includes 15% franchise fee payment to
Village from vendor.)
BOCC 11/20/13:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item U8 Discussion and presentation of the final offers from the vendors for the Solid
Waste Program and related contracts. The following individuals addressed the Board: Rudy
Krause, representing Rudy Krause Construction; Bruce Williams, John Albert and Greg
Sullivan representing Waste Management. Rhonda Haag, Sustainability Program Manager
and Kevin Madok, Sr. Director of Strategic Planning. After discussion, a motion was made
by Commissioner Neugent and seconded by Commissioner Rice to move forward with the
proposed demonstration projects that were discussed and directed staff to prepare a contract
for approval and revisit it on the next Board of County Commissioners meeting in December.
DUAKV OF COUNTY COIVIIVIMONIM
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: DWMgW.l1.2013 Division:
Sidle Item: No _X Dcpartmeut CRW .
Staf Contect/Phone* Hug. 42:m
AGENDA Il'1' m WORDING.— Discussion, recnammoodadon and direction or approval on the &d
offers 5o:n the vendors for the solid waste program and rdated contracts.
'■— aJs. JL%9A VAAr, 500 has received Coral offers from the solid waste vendors, and will present
these optim to the BOCC for discussion and qpoval of the desired for.
forward methodolm
aa%m•aVW^Viu&vJ%ax1fmx;ACTION:
O V"13: BOCC was bdded on the potential for two solid waste ordinance�; one calends
the a owable term of solid collection ag is from 5 to 10 years and the other sets forth ds
e�cemptioh to competitive bidding for all solid waste services.an
09/17123: BOCC approves two solid waste ordaeaace modifications. Out extends the allumdAe term of
collection agreements from 5 to 10 years and the other sets forth an cmnption to
compatitimbidding
for all solid wage sarvlces. The ordinances wiK be effective upon filing with the Deparbneut of State.
10/1 U13: The two ordinances (Ordinance No. 034-2013 and Ordinance No. 035-2013) are effective.
10116113: BOCC Paunullm and dbcwWon of the current offms from the solid waste vendors. 30
day extension to negotiations authorized and more cost effective offers requested.
I IM13: BOCC premnaitlon and discussion of the and —final off= 5om the solid waste vendors. 3
extmum to negotiations authorised and more cost effective offers requested.
CONTRACT/AG CKMGE3: Not applicable
STAFN RECOhOMMAlMONS: Options to be presented for approval
TOTAL DWIRECT COST: _
Cm TO COUNTY: 155 t se SOURCE OF FUNDS: al
REVENUE PRODUCWG: Yes_ No_ 0UWM Y
ew—
OVER Y: CouatyA p-
j
D AT ON: lndude — Not Required— To be Presented %
DISPOSITION: AG A r=d
EXHIBIT
s
1, Vendor still waives same 4 years CPI's
Cumu,[ative Expense oyears Residential CP12M = $33 Million
Previous 3 years of wolvers expense yrs, 8,9, 5A Millivon
2, Vendor still forgives capital debt $467)270
4, Vendor switches to Compressed Natural Gas as trucks are replaced -
Sustainability
Vendor provides 1 `'tracking system
I Tracks solid waste, recycling, etc, perfacility & more
7A. ff Vendor now offers composting 15,000 tons in
Homestead
@ ,.
$681ton (previously $81 /ton in Okeechobee)
i $16/ton savings = $240
MR h
} 000/yr.-, ii ion
a..
{ S i t \ � � � � � Kes
y
o"e� t' �t �u y s.i{st .om ��,+o, i ��, , G ,,? b � �{ �s
7B.Vendoroffers 1 1 15,000 tons
$60,00/ton
$24.50/ ton savings = $367,000/yr. @ 10 years= $ 3,6 Million
Vendor CPIincreases to
2.5%
maximum
i
Vendor still waives CPI increases in
3 of
10 years
Vendor waives years 2,4,6. Cumulative Expense = $253,260
Vendor formerly waived years 8,9,20 @ $371,119
y�Vendor still offers $50,000/yr. rebate, over 10 yrs, = $500,000
Equals estimated $10 / ton rebate
offers share of revenue if recycle market improves
Composting Key Largo $,240,000 /y, fo, 10 VrS,
Burning Key Larg
o $360,000/yr, for 10 yrs,
Lower Keys B(jrn'ng - $240,000/y, for 10 yrs,
Recyc[Ing: $640,000/year for 10 yrs.
I
Cu rrent Vendor Offers do not yet meet goal of
Maintain or lower rates paid by Residents"
Current Assessment coRected per Househo[d per year-,
Assessment by year 2024 to maintaln Fund Mance:
Required Annual Increases - 8,2% in 10 years
Scenario 2: Required Assessment Increases , includes 40% burn/ 60%
compost
Current Assessmeint collected per Househo[d per year: $404
Assessment by year 12024 to maintain Fund Balance-, $441
Required Annual Increases - 8,11% in 10 years
JLCIICII [it, J ICq1IIC1A))CCI I L II ILI COM) I I M110 L I =1 LMMU
Buirn aii omen,ardl waste composted
t
Current Assessment collected per Hou.sehoki per year, $404
L,
Assessment by year 2024 Lo maintain Fund Ba[ance: $443
Required Annual IncreaSes - 9 % In 10 years
a
BOCC 12/11/13
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item P5 Discussion, recommendation, and direction or approval on the final offers from
the vendors for the solid waste program and related contracts. The following individuals
addressed the Board: Rhonda Haag, Sustainability Program Manager and Roman Gastesi,
County Administrator. John Albert, representing Waste Management; Greg Sullivan and Bill
Hunter. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Neugent and seconded by
Commissioner Rice to accept the presentation, the collection and to extend the existing
contracts. Roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Commissioner Carruthers No
Commissioner Kolhage No
Commissioner Neugent Yes
Commissioner Rice Yes
Mayor Murphy Yes
Motion carried.
BOARD OF COUNTY COhOMSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 19, 2014
Bulls Item: No X
Division: County Administrator
Department: County Administrator
Staff Contact /Phone #: Rhonda Haag. 453-8774
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and update on the incineration demonstration project.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Staff is negotiating details with the vendor and will present an update to the
BOCC for discussion.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
11-20-13: Presented option for incineration, among other solid waste processing options.
12-11-13: Presented final options for solid waste. BOCC approved the concept of an incineration
demonstration project with Rudy Krause.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: Not applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Options to be presented
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: CountyAtty OMB/Purchasmg Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # CAD # Q - '-"
EXHIBIT
... �. Z I :IMMMIIII
SA. Vendor, offers composting 10,000 tons in Okeechobee
$8 LSO/ton
$3,02/ton savings = $30,200/year over 2 years: $ 60,400
OR
SIB. Vendor offers incineration of 10,000 tons at Key Largo
$60.00/ton
A $24,50/ ton savings = $245,000/year over 2 years $490,000
A. Vpndnr switches to Cnmnrpqsed Natural Gas as trucks are
replaced — Sustainability Item
7.Vendor provides "Enspire" tracking system
Tracl(s solid waste, recycling, etc. per facility & more
$3,15
lllglllq�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IliqI ligilliq
111 11 Will I 51 K ! lI II 1I I III I lI II 1 11 11 III I lI 11 .9 1 1 111 lIill
= .112M
2�
$5.54 $3.85 $5.68 $3.95 $,031 $9.58 $0.57 $9.84 $10.08
1111111 IqI IIIII� ll�pI I
� mirrk'T",
skil 0 1 IRAIR19:1k,
Move fo Ij wa I{ d with h Lower wAli ( Keys Demonstration Project for } local
incineration and mulching
Move II o 1 wa it d with Upper
Keys i, I ` s Demonstration Project for
local
al
incineration
! ir II sa`a !o; r and f t�i',mulching
Issue rf solicitation for
a processing of yard waste
Numerous interested vendors
eit ,dair;
Yard r i isWaste is a commodity with value economically and environmentally
I , , i, o Ie; 6 ,ta
BOCC 2/19/14:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Item Q7 Discussion and update on the incineration demonstration project. The following
individuals addressed the Board: Alicia Putney; Rudy Krause, representing Rudy Krause
Construction; Margaret Sprague; Michael Chonowoth, representing Florida Keys Izaak
Walton League; Don Riggs; Deb Curlee, representing Last Stand; Bill Hunter•, John
Hammerstrom, representing Tavernier Community Association and Dottie Moses. Rhonda
Haag, Sustainability Program Manager and Ailicia Betancourt, Family & Community
Development Agent. After discussion, no action was taken.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMONERS
AGZKm4 rnm NARY
Mccft8 Dde: Mmh 19, 2014
Balk Item: No X
Staff Contact/Ia Haas 453-8774
AGVWA 1T18M WORDD�TG: Diswssion.updatp,rcoommendalior and daection an the Com Ws
yard *ww Processing.
rMd BACBGIROUMk staff has
Ca:nVs y d wade and desires input eve � ossis � Pi'oceasia8 of the
reelnested of the peevioas offeas befonr
is ahwr by _ _ fear pr rasing y d Disaa
PiumouS BBLEVANT BOCC ACTION:
08/?.3/13: BOCC was briefed an the potential foar two solid waste aM mnca modifications: one
�� the allowable tam of solid waste collection agroemmts fiom 5 to 10 years and the other sets fartb an a uWdmi to mWatitive Wdd1mg for all solid waste mvkm
09/17/23: BOCC appwves two solid waste mftsmnodvkwm om=tends the allowable term cf
coon 2800001cuts h m 5 to 10 years and the other ads forth an exempdmto eve bidding for all solid waste services. The =Sam es will beeffeWn %M Ming wish me DV=bmma of state
10/11/13: The: two ordinances (On&aaoe No. 034-2013 and Ordimnoe No. 035-2013) ace effoctim
10/16/13: BOCC presentation and discussion of the anmmt offem tram the solid waste vendors. 30
day actension to negotiations auftdied and more cost effective offers rite &
WWII BOCC PmeenWon saddiscusionof the semi-final ohs from the solid wade vendors. 3
week ecten = to ngpbgWns authorized and man oast eiiative offers requested.
12/11J13: BOCC presenWonanddisenssionof the BW ol1'ers for solid waste and a potential
d ofan faprM d m dta@ing of the solid waste
pr+olacd m Ramrod.
02119/14. BOCC ducussW &c hwuaabon won pro; . a� disaessed
a won for prmaWmg of yard waste. No formal vote =mug fmmW with
CONTRACT/AGES �N�g: Na applicable
STAFF BECOM+ it ONE: Options to be prtsented for appmd
TOTAL COST:
mIRECT COST: _
BUDGETED: Yes DIAL OF LOCAL
PMMMNCX. MA
COST TO COUNTY; SOURCE OF F[MDS:
EXHIBIT
IEVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No _ AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
ft—APPROVED BY: County APT' OMB/Pmvhmmg Risk Maneg ement
DOCUMENTATION: Included Not To be Presented x
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # #
I] A U,
.-. M 1"
Ili•4`t� I, `r, \\� jilyz `��}, � �1``�,t '` ti `� 'tit �i,F � ` l3 ly' Ili I)( ���. Iii rt I% ilk �Ss `�! �)� c„t i�„ ,..
Draft RFP is 141 i(; III 4td e t 'l '4St S , complex set }' IU terms
d>, a ;R' t r „, P p g e,t 4u d input into t =' Illl e content
a) Capabilities and structure of project management
team, experience of facility manager and personnel
e) Written assessment of proposed plan of operation
e) Ability to meet implementation schedule and the
soundness of the plan
fy Ability and willingness to accommodate educational
and public tours of the processing facilities
g) Commitment to developing a strong market for
compost, wood mulch, ash and other
h) Commitment to employee and public safety
a) Overall price and process fee per ton
b) Insurability
c) Verification that the proposed costs are consistent wit
the activities described in the proposal and the
Proposer's operations and maintenance plans
d) Proposed revenue sharing arrangements and costs
e) Appropriateness of the basis for unit cost escalation- if
� Access to relevant corporate financial records and/or
audited financial statements
g) Financial sensitivity to changes in servic12
I
0
I
Greenhouse gas emissions. Extra points if S , aI{ b o r
neutral.?
al
Ability
tt I I� i i�� provide
�,�: S i�t ri I( ,�x'- i� in,County
processing'1' ,. �s�r ; 4i }� tt��
County processing. Extra po1 ? i it 1 'in -County
processing?
Use of t 1 t` j tExtra points
z 1 if don't
( ,
County property.?
Short term vs long term i.p. 6 ' . 2 years, tl years,f
Allow ,;eta i lExtra points if long term.?
, ! l; { :
$84/ton?,
S= l,,i�i` ``f{�3` ' u,� �� i'� 11, � �i� rI+ �iill�� I!
OM
ME
r ! r
rr a
�� t
C. Still
have fi.4 Million in CPI's to pay vendors
over I years for Residential.
D. Still have $2.3
bill 117=61 A IM 2 2 A 1h,
ammam
1. Waste Mgmt now offers composting 15,000 tons in Okeechobee
$631ton. Previously $68/ton in Homestead,
1 $2 1,50/ton savings = $322,500/year over 10 years:
2. OtherVend-ors offering composting 0 $60/tties n
$24.50/ton savings = $367,500/year over 10 years
MEE
3. Waste Mgmt offers incineration of I S,000 tons at
Key Largo @, $601ton
$24,50/ ton savings = $367,500/year over 10 years $3,6 Million*
11Q, 4 11 . . . . . . . . . . .
r
$406
Assessments required to process a current
• .!KINVIII
Requires annual increases — cumulative of 12.5% over
$412 $4115 $421 $425 $426 $430 $436 $446 $456
IB
I
$404
Compost 15,000 tons yard waste i $63/ton
annual CPI's
Current Assessment collected per Household per year. $404
Assessment by year 2024 to maintain Fund Balance.
Requires annual increases —cumulative of % overl0 years
$404 $404 $404 $409 $414 $418 $425 $434
$445
0
$404
3, Incinerate @ $55/ton (+ annual CPI increases)
Current Assessment collected per Household per year. $404
Assessment by year 2024 to maintain Fund Balance. I
Requires Annual Increases —cumulative of in 10years
$404 $404 $404 $404 $404 $407 $421 $431 $441
a
t, $, {t (a {t qt Assessment Rate $404
1i t is 11 t li z ttti t a5i) r1�t1; li
waste,to,energy plant at current rates
2. ! 1 a�u�< it�J �, `>»s ���'Ir $445
y
I !,F
all
, $55/ton $42,
Issues0
;
As $ Cost vs. Sustainability Issues
B.
will cost dramatically more 'in the
long
With a rise
of 4.6' of
sea level
rise, 96% of
Big Pine is
under water.
$1.6 Billion
in lost
property
value
B I(* PIN :i.:, Kr.,"y SC'EN A RK 5' ,14 011 -5 IN) 1040,2070,z'wo Tier, , S'[,,,R IF,
HIGHENt') 16HMSTOI(F ITAL 200-' jO CAI (19,1 IN;) TO 140 CM (55 IN,)
I
2. CCAC rpatiesting input into R I!t P content
and evaluation criteria
a) Special Workshop scheduled for April 29, 2014
b) CCAC requesting greenhouse gas emons be included in
evaluation criteria, among other items,
The End
BOCC 3/19/14:
Item P9 Discussion, recommendation and direction on the County's yard waste
processing. The following individuals addressed the Board: Alicia Putney, Margaret Sprague,
Bill Hunter, Deb Curlee, Bruce Williams, representing Advanced Disposal; Naja Girard,
representing Last Stand; and Rhonda Haag, Sustainability Program Manager. After
discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Carruthers and seconded by Commissioner
Kolhage to move Staff Recommendation of combining items 1, 2 and 3. Motion carried
unanimously. A Roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Commissioner Carruthers Yes
Commissioner Kolhage Yes
Commissioner Neugent Yes
Commissioner Rice Yes
Mayor Murphy Yes
Motion Carries.
27r KWAlthsaeec
November 3, 2009
Mr. Dent Pierce
Ding of Public Works
Monroe County
1100 Simonton St.
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Per the Tenn Extension Agreement to the Restated Monroe County Transfer Stations
Operations and Maintenance Agreement, M=Vw County is entitled to a rate
adjustment of the Recycling Processing Fee effective October 1, 2009.
Paragraph 2 Section 3.01 of the Term Extension Agreement states that "On October 1,
20% and each October 1" throughout the remaining term(s) of the original agreement,
the operations and disposal fee shall be adjusted based on die Refuse Rate indent
depicted In Enddbit 8 of the original agreement, or the corsuim price bloc (CPI), US
City Avemp, All hom, "Wood by die Department of Labor, Department of Labor
Statistics, vddch ever is lower. Nwwrever, in no event may a yearly per ton increase in
the operations and disposal The be greater than 4% of the prior year's per ton fee.
Based upon the applicable CPI data, Monroe County is entitled to a decrease in the
tipping fee to $79.18 per ton effective October 1, 2009. This fee represents a 1,48%
decrease from the previous fiscal year rate of $80.37.
Enclosed is the Bureau of Labor Statistics data sheet confirming the applicable CPI
rates used in the calculation.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.6cw
Don Zi ann
Financial Analyst
Waste Management Inc of Florida
CC: Ron Kaplan - WAN
Roly Vega - WMI
John Albert - WMl
Rosa Washington - Monroe County
® ftm ewrvdav wilartim to enwkwunental wo&d orn. M* ®n W fhfxk Waste 1lfanngeaapt
EXHIBIT
a
a
8
October 1, 2011
Mr. Dent Pierce
Director of Public Works
Monroe County
1100 Simonton St.
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Per the Term Extension Agreement to the Restated Monroe County Transfer Stations
Operations and Maintenance Agreement, Waste Management is entitled to a rate
adjustment of the Operation and Disposal Fee effective October 1, 2011.
Paragraph 2 Section 3.01 of the Tenn Extension Agent states that "On October 1,
2006 and each October 11t throughout the remaining term(s) of the original agreement,
the operations and disposal fee shall be adjusted based on the Refuse Rate Index
depicted in Exhibit B of the original agreement, or the consumer price index (CPI), US
City Average, All Items, published by the Department of Labor, Department of Labor
Statistics, which ever is lower. However, in no event may a yearly per ton increase in
the operations and disposal fee be greater than 4% of the prior year's per ton fee.
Based upon the applicable CPI data, Waste Management is entitled to an increase in
the tipping fee to $83.11 per ton effective October 1, 2011. This fee represents a
3.77% increase from the previous fiscal year rate of $80.09.
Enclosed is the Bureau of Labor Statistics data sheet confirming the applicable CPI
rates used in the calculation.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions
Sincerely,
Don Zimmermann
Financial Analyst
Waste Management Inc of Florida
CC: Ron Kaplan - WMI
Greg Sullivan - WMI
John Albert - WMI
Rosa Washington - Monroe County
win
October 1, 2012
Mr. Dent Pleme
Director of Public Works
Monroe ty
1100 Co tton St.
Key west, FL 33040
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Per the Term Extension Agrearmit to the Restated Monroe County Transfer Stations
Operations and Maintenance Agmement, Waste Management Is entlded to a rate
44ustrnent of the Operation and Disposal Fee effective October 1, 2012.
Paragraph 2 Section 3.01 of the Tem C=ft AMMM slat"that "On October 1,
M and each Onober 1't Mmqhod the remaining term(s) of the
the openft n and dlamd fee shall be based on the Refuse Rate Index
is
depicted in Exhibit 0 of the original agaernent, or the consuner prke index (CPQ, us
City Average, All items, Published by the DePXtrAft of Labor, Department of Labor
Statistics, whichever is louver. Howe%w, in no event may a yearly per ton increase in
the operations and disposal free be greater than 4% of the prior year's per ton fee.
Based upon the appikable CPI data, Waste Alanagenvent is o tied to an increase in
the tipping fee to $94.52 par ton effective October 1, 2012. This few represents a
1.69AL Increase, from the previous focal yaw raw of $93.11.
Enclosed is the Mmu of Labor Statistics data sheet confirming the applicable CPI
rates used in the calculation.
Please feel free to oM tact me if you ham any questions.
Sincerely,
Greg Sullivan
District Manager
CC: Ron Kaplan - WMI
John Albert - WMI
Rosa Washington - Monroe County
From everyday collection to environmental protection, Think 6reent Think Waste Management.
Mr. out
Dhow of Nft Works
Monroe clowft
1100 St.
Key Writ, 33040
rf' `=1
PerthOle ft
fKbmdon 10 1 to the PMtWd NOWU Carry Transfer Stations
Waste Alanalment U entitled to a too
adjustment the and OMMMw October 1, 2013.
2 aWnd 3.01 theDaft &MMEM states that "on 1,
WM(5) d the orwnd
the depicted to and B of f shall be adjusted based an the -
, or the cmmmwptw f (CPq, LIS
city 0by the of Labor, Department of Labor
stalistim, emu .However, to so event may a dW ton 1n
the and fee be der then of prior _ s per ton fee.
BUM CPI dab, WhM Manapment
fee s
fee to $85. per ton effective October , is erg to an rna�ease i
M. Thfs represents a
1.52% fmVI ff from the fiscal year rate of $64.32.
WOW
rates used the Labor Statktim oonAnoft the CPI
Plasse feel bw to
me ff you tmw any questions.
CC: kn WN
Albeit - W
WasMnQton Monroe COLD"
d
From eeff as eaviroanroataf PNWHeq, ` 6rrea.' Vdnk Waste Mansymarc
o fmww wpOY11�IyYIM
October 1, 2014
Mr. Dent Pierce
Director of Public Works
Monroe County
1100 Simonton St.
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Per the Term Extension Agreement to the Restated Monroe County Transfer Station Operations and
Maintenance Agreement, Waste Management is entitled to a rate adjustment of the Operation and
Disposal Fee effective October 1, 2014.
Paragraph 2 Section 3.01 of the Tenn Extension Agreement states that "On October 1, 2006 and each
October 2" throughout the remaining term(s) of the original agreement, the operations and disposal fee
shall be adjusted on the Refuse Rate Index depicted In Exhibit 8 of the original agreement, or the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), US City Average, All Items, published by the Department of labor,
Department of tabor Statlstics, which ever it lower. However, in no event may a yearly per ton Increase
In the operations and disposal fee be greater than 4% of the prioryeaes per ton fee.
Based upon the applicable CPI data, Waste Management is entitled to an increase in the tipping fee to
SB7.26 per ton effective October 1, 2014. This fee represents a 1.70% increase from the previous fiscal
year rate of $8S.80.
Enclosed is the Bureau of labor Statistics data sheet confirming the applicable CPI rates
used in the calculation.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Greg Sullivan
District Manager
CC: Ron Kaplan — WMI
Rosa Washington — Monroe County
from everyday collection to enyfronmental protection, Think Green. Think Waste Management.
A NN Karen R. Horan
Tuesday, Dawnber 16, 2014 3:46 PM
TO: Wlson-Kewn
Cc Kdllage-DanW, BOOC M; BOOMIS4,• W=ISS; BOCMIS2; David P. Horan
Subject RN: Amended and Restabed Monroe County Hard -Ova Transftr Stations Opergoons and Mbkftwm
AWeernent
Dear Kevin:
Ptusnant to Article III of the May 21, 2014 Amended and Restated Waste Management Agreement,
Waste Management is reducing the present $97.15 per ton disposal fee for Monroe County horticokurd waste
(yard waste).
Starting January 1' ; 2015, Waste Management is red>cmg the disposal bee for yard waste to $77.50 per
ton. The yard waste wdl be taken to we of waste Management's DEP approved sites where it will be used as
daily ground cover, mulch or composted. All of the other terms of the May 21, 2014 Amended and Restated
Agreement are unchanged and will remain in full force and effect.
In the event the County wishes to formally amend Article III, Section 3.01 of the May 21, 2014
Amended and Restated Agreement (Opus and Disposal Fee), please have a draft Addendum
prepared. Call if you have any questions.
Re spexffuuy,
David Paul Horm% Esq.
Attorney for Waste Management, inc., of Florida
(Dictated By David Paul Horan)
Ho
MUM allscat
Key Wan. FtorUb 33040
(305) Z4.4sss (Tdq wse)
(305) —'94-78n QraadMe)
This a MWL o WfA as any a m ,15 ewmd by the Bbeehoah: hWM Act, 12 USC S1%dM 2510.2521 a d it fadaai and zMa law including bet not aadtad to bars RVRabla to the agntnayldienuptivikge sad Giber peivtae,aaman. The iafamatioa aauaioed� &k e-mail
mnw sG a w oanwee d b 6nukos buffed only for uw of the ' a aft above U a m Deader of n66 ot is ant the
LWMMiaUon is eaaw pl ify y .� or 0OP9 of ft � is ap y p�� g �p bavc teadVW Ibis
ptivilt aar wql h eoaslimte a waiver of the aimit � by aa� olber 1hm Wa dedsomd axiom don not waive the MWwWdim
-pMd=doenbsd THANK YOU.
EXHIBIT
w.
(305) 453-07e0
(954) 984-2042 FAX
Account Summary
Dead
Previous Balance
Total Credits and Adjustments
Total Payments Received
Total Current Charim
Total Amount Due
Total Amount Past Due
Service Period: JAN 2015
Page 1 of 3
Customer: MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
INVOICEOnline WM ezPay ID: 00010 410342000
Invoice Date 02/01l2015
Invoice Number 0000327-MI-3
Account Number, 77114W0001-22814
Due Date. Due Upon Rempt
If futt Payment of the mrmead amount is not WAINed VAhi s 30 days of the Invoke date, you
wdl be charged a mmn#* lets fee of 2S% of 0se uripwo amaount, wdh a mhumum nxmft
charge of t5 O0, or such We fee agowed under appkaft law. raguta0on or Contract..
Additionally, If your semee as suspended for non-payment, you may be charged a resume The
to restart your serves For each returned check. a fee will be assessed on your next bitting
egsml to the mmdmum amount permitted by aPpifeabla state law.
Total Currant Charges Total Ariz" Due
_w
665,000.69 1,32Z580A4
�J—
Use your iPtw w or Android mobde device to manage your
aeoount. Pay your bill, and sdadule a roll -off pickup, similar
to wm mn. More at wmcmVGoMobW
Current Due Over 30 Over 60 Over 90 Over 120 Total Due
665,000 69 635-615 45 L „ 9.170 76 12,793 54 0 00 I,322,580.44
%%Pta
Payment Coupon
cur accwut er
To Pay Sus all online
ww..
a" 1 0 d anae«ww0dWb °a6r 6w).
aw,ea.,waao�ha ro,,w.awsrm
no of
and d switch to papadase
wasro Inc at pbrmInvoice
billing, go to
Po cox a2a10
Data
Your Iwa= Nw War
PHOISAX AZ 85060
Ot/01fT01fi
000 V41181-3
1304) es&07ae
WS'i) ta4-2042 FAX
Due Date Tow Oia
Anwinit Paid
upon Rewpt 1.3n.11180A4
22617700000001000003270006650006900132258044 5
uwnw 01w041ki••„+w,. ,4s4o,iwoan0w.014,MW3
ilk'III'111�1'1'I'I�Il�llllrlllllullirlll�ydldrl�llll��l'�I�I
1Ue;41i I1��''�P19b'�II'1161r111�'I�I�'�II'�I�r�bl'16r�ll�u�l�s�u
v..... NONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
t
Monroe County Transfer Statlon
1100 tiIYONTON 8T
KEY WEST FL 33000,3110
PO Box /osm
ATLANTA GA 30349
From evervdav collection to environmvn
MAP Whe#a if,R".vrwa a"+ �r W
E5MT
W
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Waste Management Inc of Florida
PO BOX 42930
PHOENIX, AZ 85080
Page 3 of 3
Customer: MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
Online WM ezPay ID:
00010-44103-62000
Invoice Date
02/01/201!
Invoice Number
0000327-2261 -"
Account Number:
770-0000001-2261-4
Due Date.
Due Upon Receipt
Service Location: 770-1 Monroe County Transfer Station. 1100 Simonton St: Key West Fl 33040-3110
--bes-cAp'fi-o'n
Dale Ticket
Quantity
U/M Rate
Amount
02/01/1 5-321961 Vehicle#
Municipal solid waste
2,748.68
TON 87.1
239,547,46
Key largo
Municipal solid waste
2,223,91
TON 87 5
193,81376
Long key
Municipal solid waste
2.65T 94
TON 15
231,639,47
Ticket Total
o5'
665,000.69
02/01/15 Exempt
0 .93
000
Total Current Charges
—7,665
1$
From everyday collection to environmental protection, Think Green! Think Waste Manaaement. pd.t!d
Sullivan -
From: Wilson -Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 201410:44 PM
To: Sullivan -Cheryl; Leto -Beth
Cc: Limbert-Christine; Haag -Rhonda
Subject: Invoices from Wste Management
Cheryl & Beth,
Just to ensure there is no confusion about paying solid waste and recycle processing invoices from Waste Management
and, on the advice of counsel (see attached), please use the following rates in paying all invoices from Waste
Management for OCT 2014 onwards until advised differently:
Solid Waste haul out & disposal $85.83/ton (=$84.50 x 242.268/238.524)
Recycle processing: $75.08/ton (=$73.92 x 242.268/238.524)
All invoices should contain the number of tons. If their invoices use a different unit cost than the above, the invoices
should be corrected and Waste Management should be paid only the unit rates above. Questions? Call me
kevinw
Kevin G. Wilson, P.E.
Monroe County Public Works & Engineering Division
Murray E. Nelson Government & Cultural Center
102050 Overseas Highway, Room 214
Key Largo, FL 33037
(305) 292-4560 (Key West)
(305) 453-8797 phone (Key Largo - direct)
(305) 797-1547 cell
(305) 453-8798 fax -Key Largo
(305) 295-4321 fax -Key West
wilson-kevinCn)monroecounty-fl gov
95�9
3'S, d'3
ass; 9a�:3
MATERIAL ANALYSIS REPORT BY MATERIAL
JANUARY 2015
KEY LARGO
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
170
249.72
0
249.72
CL
138
91.71
0
91.71
G1
277
1,673.40
0
1,673.40
RB
0
0.00
0
0.00
YW
169
733.85
0
733.85
TGTI-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
754
2,748.68
0
2,748.68
LONG KEY
MATERIAL
OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
177
202.65
0
202.65
CL
102
87.85
0
87.85
G1
203
1,533.66
0
1,533.66
GYW
17
118.37
118.37
RB
4
1.70
0
1.70
SPEC
0
0.00
0
0.00
YW
146
279.68
0
279.68
TGT(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW;)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
649
2,223.91
0
2,223.91
CUDJOE KEY
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
396
242.78
0
242.78
C"_
91
87.04
0
87.04
Gi
30
100.49
0
100.49
GYW
465
11989.18
0
1,989.18
RB
36
14.31
0
14.31
SD
0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
1
2.70
0
2.70
YW
321
22".44
0
221.44
TGT, _)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TRG i )
0.00 0 0.00
TOTALS 1340 2,657.94 0 2,657.94
ALL SITES
MATERIAL
CD
CL
Gk
GYW
RB
SD
SPEC
YW
TGT(•)
GW( )
7RG(. )
TOTALS
# OF TRIPS TOTAL TONS ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL HAUL -OUT
745 695.15
10
695.15
331 266.60
0
266.60
510 3,307.55
0
3,307.55
482 2,107.55
0
2,107.55
40 16.01
0
16.01
0 0.00
0
0.00
1 2'.70
0
2.70
636 1,234.97
0
1,234.97
0 0.00
p
0.00
0 0.00
0
0.00
0 0.00
0
0.00
2745 T630.53
0
7,630.53
KEY LARGO
2,748.68
LONG KEY
2,223.91
CUDJOE KEY
2,657.94
TOTAL 7,630.53
Page 1 of
Customer: MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATOOf
INVOICE Online WM ezPay ID: 00010-44103-62001
WASTE MAMAGEME111T Invoice Date 03/01/201
Waste Management Inc. of Florida Invoice Number0000329-2261-
PO BOX 42930 Account Number 770-0000001-2261-
PHOENIX, AZ 85080 Due Date, Due Upon Receir
(305) 453-0788
(954) 984-2042 FAX Total Current Charges Total Amount Due
606,080.32 647,744.14
Account Summary
�■ Descri tienp Failure to pay Ihis balance could necessitate further
collection action Please process your payment in full
Previous Balance 696,592.21 today.
Total Credits and Adjustments 0.00
Total Payments Received 654,928.39-
Total Current Charges 606,080.32
Total Amount Due 647,744.14
Total Amount Past Due 41,663.82
Service Period: FES 2015
Description Amount
Landfill
Charges ,080.32 �
^^
Total Current C 606 p/ j �00. 71-!r
hIull a ment of the invoiced amount is not receved within 30 days of the invoice date you P Y y
be charged a monthly late fee of 2.5% of the unpaid amount, with a minimum monthly
charge of $5.00, or such late fee allowed under applicable law regulation or contract.
Additionally, if your service is suspended for non-payment, you may be charged a resume fee r,
to restart your service, For each returned check, a fee will be assessed on your next billing
equal to the maximum amount permitted by applicable state law. Use your iPhone or Android mobile device to manage your
account, pay your bill and schedule a roll -off pickup, similar
to wm.com, More at wm com/GoMobite.
Current Due Over 30 Over 60 Over 90 Over 120 Total Due
. .....
606,080 32 10,072 30 9,627,22 9 170 76 12,79354 647,74414
Payment Coupon Your Account i;P— j__J To pay this bill online
Please detach and send with checks_. ft,' (no cash) 770-0000001 2261.4 and switch to paperles;
WASTE MAIIIAOIEMENT Please send all other cauespondeme to your local site ! billing, go to
Waste Management Inc of Florida r Invoice Date Your Invoice Number win condpaperless
PO BOX 42930
PHOENIX AZ 85080 03/011201li 0000329-2281-9
(305) 453-0788 Due Date Total Due _ Amount Paid
(954) 984-2042 FAX
Upon Receipt m .v � 647,744.14
22617700000001000003290006060803200064774414 7
^WxK,(, 1, 01 48tt ^-MA,MJN11 61 r"d P$(a10, Fv(Xx, a..i,r400110a..i
I�illd�l�l'I�Illy�hl�l'll�'ll�ll""Il��lllllf Irhll��lrhllll Waste Management
.... MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION Monroe County Transfer Station
1100 SIMONTON ST PO BOX 105463
KEY WEST FL 33040-3110 ATLANTA GA 30348
Pdno environmental protection, Think Green' Think Waste Management. rey apape+
Prom everydaycollection t
I I'll
r^ r .r,�P; , C, Ri, r ,t,�,Q',,/.� P,1 r [�" Ycf fI HN4kF 0y P (, '3, r"` I
rages or i
Customer: MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATIOl'
Online WM ezPay ID:
00010-44103-620011
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Invoice Date
03/01/201!
Waste Management Inc. of Florida
Invoice Number
0000329-2261 -!
PO BOX 42930
Account Number
770-0000001-2261-
PHOENIX, AZ 85080
Due Date
Due Upon Receip
Service Location: 770-1 Monroe Coun f Transfer Station: 1100 Simonton St: Key West FI 33040,3110
Date Ticket Description Quantity UiM Rate Amount
103/01/15 322035 Vehicle*
Municipal solid waste 2,65125 TON 871 231,23074
Key largo
Municipal solid waste 2,01606 TON 87.15 175,699.63
Long key
Municipal solid waste 2.285,14 TON 715 199,14995
Cudjoe key
Ticket Total 606,080.32
03/01/15 Exem 0,00
Total Current Charges 6 1.32
Ltayments Received Detail
0i ' Payment - thank you 654,928.39-
Total Payments Received 654,928.39-
printed a
From everyday collection to environmental protection, Think Green" Think Waste Management. recyded panper
P, 1, '5' F:' , F , t)fZ E S 5 0 IR ,,, ", r �"" f ,"/' ,/!t„'�;e" S E ;3 Cf,) h6l A C1 N U RM 8 F:- R 0fk PA G E �
Sullivan-Che i
From: Wilson -Kevin
Sent Wednesday, December 17, 201410:44 PM
To: Sullivan -Cheryl; Leto -Beth
Cc: Limbert-Christine; Haag -Rhonda
Subject: Invoices from Wste Management
Cheryl & Beth,
Just to ensure there is no confusion about paying solid waste and recycle processing invoices from Waste Management
and, on the advice of counsel (see attached), please use the following rates in paying all invoices from Waste
Management for OCT 2014 onwards until advised differently:
Solid Waste haul out & disposal $85.83/ton (=$84.50 x 242.268/238.524)
Recycle processing: $75.08/ton (=$73.92 x 242.268/238.524)
All invoices should contain the number of tons. If their invoices use a different unit cost than the above, the invoices
should be corrected and Waste Management should be paid only the unit rates above. Questions? Call me
kevinw
Kevin G. Wilson, P.E.
Monroe County Public Works & Engineering Division
Murray E. Nelson Government & CulturalCenter
102050 Overseas Highway, Room 214
Key Largo, FL 33037
(305) 292-4560 (Key West)
(305) 453-8797 phone (Key Largo - direct)
(305) 797-1547 cell
(305) 453-8798 fax -Key Largo
(305) 295-4321 fax -Key West
wilson-kevinC&monroecounty-fl'.gov
A/
�� s�" '""''," tip✓ a`
MATERIAL ANALYSIS REPORT BY MATERIAL
FEBRUARY 2015
KEY LARGO
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
174
34878
348.78
CL
143
108,41
1.54
109.95
GI
242
1,488.14
1,488-14
RB
0
000
G
0.00
Y'W
44
706.38
706.38
'rGT(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
0
0.00
0
0,00
TRG(+)
0
olJo
0
0.00
TOTALS
703
2,651 71
1.54
2,65125
LONG KEY
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
122
130.90
0
130.90
CL
92
151,28
1.8
153,09
GI
196
1,492.72
0
1,492.72
RB
0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
0
0,00
0
0.00
YW
104
241.77
0
241.77
TCT-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TW.)
5
-2.42
0
-2.42
7RCH
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
519
2,01415
I'sf
2,016.06
CUDJOE KEY
MATERiAL
# OF TRIPS
TOT41_ TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
354
229.75
0
229,75
CL
86
69.77
5.56
75.33
Gf
28
98044
0
98.44
GYW
415
1123.53
0
1,723.53
RB
24
11.82
0
11,82
SD
0
oloo
0
0.00
SPEC
2.31
0
2.31
YW
216
143.96
0
143.96
TGT(-)
0
0,00
0
0.00
"'rGW(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TRG(+j"
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
1124
2,27958
5.56
2,285-14
ALL SITES
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
660
709A3
0
709.43
CL
313
329.46
8.91
338.37
&
470
3,079 30
0
3,079-30
GYW
415
1,723.53
0
1,723.53
RB
24
11.82
0
11.82
SD
0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
1
2.3'
0
2.31
Yw
470
1.092.11
0
1 , 092.11
TGTQ•p
0
0,00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
►5
0.00
-2.42
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0100
TOTALS
2358
6,94T96
8.91
6,954.45
KEY LARGO 2,65325
LONG KEY 2,016.06
CUDJOE KEY 2 285,14
TOTA1. 6,95*45
W�n%%/%,0
INVOICE
Page 1 of 3
Customer: MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
Online WM ezPay ID: 00010-44103-62000
%VASTE Os ANAGE EMY
Invoice Date.
04/01/2015
., . . till
Deac€ur;;pton
Previous Balance 50843.69
Total Credits and Adjustments 0.00
Total Payments Received 0.00
Total CuTotalCAmount Due 739,096.87
Total Amount Past Due 50,843.69
Service Period: MAR 2015
Descr'iOn _ Amount 1°
Total Current
If full payment of the invoiced amount is not received within 30 days of the invoice date, you
will be charged a monthly late fee of 2.5% of the unpaid amount„ with a minimum monthly
charge of $5.00„ or such late fee allowed under applicable law„ regulation or contract.
Additionally, if your service Is suspended for non-payment, you may be charged a resume fee
to restart your service.. For each returned check, a fee will be assessed on your next billing
equal to the ma)dmum amount permitted by applicable state law
Failure to pay this balance could necessitate further
collection action, Please process your payment In full
today
a
'..�°
Use your (Phone or Android mobile device to manage your
account, pay your bill, and schedule a roll -off pickup, similar
to wm.com. More at wm.com/GoMobile.
Current Due Over 30 Over 60 P Over 90 Over 120 Total Due
688,253 18 9,179 87 10 072 30 9 627 22 21,964 30 739,096 87
Waste Management Inc, of Florida
OB 3
PHOENIX,.,:
1305i 453-07e8
M64'p 984.2042 FAX
Payment Coupon
Your Account Nturd�er
To pay this bill online
P/ew doWch and send � mks on -8h)
Plow send aft other �spandwi a to your tooai mte.
770-0000001-2281-0
,.
and switch to paperless
billing, 90 to
Invoice DMe
Your Invoice Number
vrlrt.corrtlpaperless
0410112016
0000331-2261.6
Upon Receipt � J 739,096.87
22617700000001000003310006882531800073909687 0
MWM canSP0480—Skg-AP n a rW?1304013F MWca, -a 10854`4, 1��''ilyyl�rfllrllb1d11�'1�1�'�II'�1�rll•1'Ilu'U�" �1�'�"
1Il8hu�1�111'IIi�11�1�"�Il�q�llr11lhrlhd1111111uill I Waste Management
MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION Monroe County Transfer Station
1100 SOMONTON ST PO BOX 106463 0
KEY WEST FL 33040-3110 ATLANTA GA 30348 g
From ev,prvdav rallectian to ®rrvirn m o ntfil nrnfart n'n Thinfr moos°" 7'h4n1r W.cfw iPoW'n"nowam a.,* Pdntrdo,n
I "a a w .
Customer: MONROE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
Online WM ezPay ID:
00010-44103-62000
VVASTE MAMAGEMENT
Invoice Date:
04/01/2015
Waste Management Inc. of Florida
Invoice Number:
0000331-2261-5
PO BOX 42930
Account Number,
770-0000001-2261-4
PHOENIX, AZ imsom
Due Date,
Due Upon Receipt
aimomon at vveat ri jju4u-3m
. . . . . .......
b a-s—edpi—lon
Date
Quantity U/M Rate Amount
-6410 —1/ 1 !T 322111 Vehicle#,
Municipal Solid waste 2,840,07 TON 7.15 247,512,10
Key largo
Municipal solid waste 2,417,46 TON 8 .15 210,68164
Long key
Municipal solid waste 2,639.81 TON 8714 230,059,44
Cudjoe key
Ticket Total 668,253.18
04/01/15 Exempt
Total Current Charges 3.18
10
Printed an
Prom everyday collection to environmental protection, Think Green: Think Waste Management. "led paper
=nQ 9-%WUnr n0! AnT'WR1r:qr. OR ANIV qjJ.'RWCF IRRUFS CONTACT NUMBER 01W PAGE I
SuUiva
From: Wilson -Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 201410:44 PM
To: Sullivan -Cheryl; Leto -Beth
Cc: Limbert-Christine; Haag -Rhonda
Subject: Invoices from Wste Management
Cheryl & Beth,
Just to ensure there is no confusion about paying solid waste and recycle processing invoices from Waste Management
and, on the advice of counsel (see attached), please use the following rates in paying all invoices from Waste
Management for OCT 2014 onwards until advised differently:
Solid Waste haul out & disposal $85.83/ton (=$84.50 x 242.268/238.524)
Recycle processing: $75.08/ton (=$73.92 x 242.268/238.524)
All invoices should contain the number of tons. If their invoices use a different unit cost than the above, the invoices
should be corrected and Waste Management should be paid only the unit rates above. Questions? Call me
kevinw
Kevin G. Wilson, P.E .
Monroe County Public Works & Engineering Division
Murray E. Nelson Government & Cultural Center
102050 Overseas Highway, Room 214
Key Largo, FL 33037
(305) 292-4560 (Key West)
(305) 453-8797 phone (Key Largo - direct)
(305) 797-1547 cell
(305) 453-8798 fax -Key Largo
('305) 295-4321 fax -Key West
wiison�kevin( monroecounty-fl Gov
u
MATERIAL ANALYSIS REPORT BY MATERIAL
MARCH 2O15
KEY LARGO
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
148
179.05
0
179.05
CL
144
90.05
4.05
94.10
GI
285
1,770.98
0
1,770.98
RB
0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
1
1.48
0
1.48
YW
198
794.46
0
794.46
TGT(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
826
2,836.02
4.05
2,840.07
LONG KEY
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
151
167.91
0
167.91
CL
97
174.17
0
174.17
GI
224
1,740.47
0
1,740.47
RB
-0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
0
0.00
0
0.00
YW
163
334.91
0
334.91
TGT(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
635
2,417.46
0
2,417.46
CUDJOE KEY
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
510
308.58
0
308.58
CL
129
137.13
1.54
138.67
G11
349
1,522.31
0
1,522.31
GYW
7
29.91
0
29.91
RB
22
10.72
0
10.72
SD
0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
-0
0.00
0
0.00
YW
356
630.35
0
630.35
TGT(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
3
-0.73
0
-0.73
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
1376
2,638.27
1.54
2,639.81
ALL SITES
MATERIAL
# OF TRIPS
TOTAL TONS
ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL HAUL -OUT
CD
863
655.54
0
655.54
CL
370
401.35
5.59
406.94
GI
858
5,033.76
0
5,033.76
GYW
7
29.91
0
29.91
RB
22
10.72
0
10.72
SD
0
0.00
0
0.00
SPEC
1
1.48
0
1.48
YW
717
1,759.72
0
1,759.72
TGT(-)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TGW(-)
3
-0.73
0
-0.73
TRG(+)
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTALS
2841
7,891.75
5.59
7,89734
KEY LARGO
2,840.07
LONG KEY
2,417.46
CUDJOE KEY
2,639.81
TOTAL
7,897.34
Amendment 1 to the Amended and Restated
Haul -out. Transfer Stations Operations and Maintenance Agreement
This Amendment 1 to the Amended and Restated Haul -Out, Transfer Stations, Operations
and Maintenance Agreement dated May 21, 2014 is entered into this day of
. 2015 between Waste Management of Florida, Inc. ("WM") and
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners ("County" or "BOCC").
WHEREAS, the County entered into the Amended and Restated Haul -Out, Transfer
Stations, Operations and Maintenance Agreement (Agreement) on May 21, 2014, and
WHEREAS, the County, in furtherance of its Yard Waste Processing Program, issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) on July 29, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2015, the BOCC approved an Interim Yard Waste
Processing Services Agreement with Energy3, LLC (Vendor); and
WHEREAS, in order to further clarify the obligations of the parties, provide adequate
space for yard waste processing services at the County's transfer station sites and designate a
Yard Waste Processing Area at each site for use and access by Vendor, this Agreement is being
modified;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual obligations
undertaken herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 2.05 shall be amended as follows:
2.05 County Visitation and Inspection of the Facility; Record Keeping and Reporting;
Testing.
(a) At any time during the term of this Agreement the County, its agents, and its
representatives shall have the right to inspect, visit and to take visitors through the
Facility in order to inspect, observe, and to permit others to observe the various services
which the Operator performs, provided that such inspection and visitations shall not
interfere with the performance of the Operator's obligations under this Agreement and
are in compliance with Section 2.05(d)..
At any time during the term of this Agreement the County shall have the right to allow other
vendor(s) to process the horticultural waste on behalf of the County, either at the transfer stations
located at Cudjoe, Long Key and Key Largo or at separate locations, as directed by the County.
The Operator shall permit such services by other vendor(s) within the Yard Waste Processing
Area as outlined within the Leased Area of the premises as outlined in Exhibit G attached, and
provided that such service by other vendor(s) shall not interfere with the performance of the
Operator's obligations under this Agreement. Such other vendors shall obtain their own permits,
insurance, bonding and other applicable requirements. The vendor(s) may begin operations
during the State permitting process, as allowed by Florida DEP regulations. Each such vendor
shall provide to the County (with a copy to Operator) an Operating Plan that sets forth vendor's
obligations, responsibilities and that demonstrates that vendor's activities will not interfere with
Operator's performance. The Operating Plan shall be subject to the approval of County and the
County shall consider in its approval process the reasonable good faith comments of Operator.
Such vendors shall be responsible for and shall indemnify County and Operator against claims,
losses, and costs incurred by County or Operator arising or related to vendor's acts, omissions or
willful misconduct including but not limited to those that cause personal injury (including death),
property damage, including but not limited to, damage to structures, improvements and internal
roadways of the Facility, and contamination, pollution or other adverse environmental impact at
or near the Facility. The Operator shall indemnify such vendor(s) against claims, losses, and
costs to the same extent it indemnifies the County pursuant to Section 6.04(a) of Agreement,
notwithstanding that 6.04(a) of the Agreement provides that the Operator's indemnity in no event
shall inure the benefit of any third party.
2. Section 2.06(b) shall be amended as follows:
(b) Composition of Acceptable Waste. The County shall not be required to guarantee the
composition of any given shipment of Acceptable Waste but horticultural waste, which is
to be processed by Operator at County's request, shall be segregated by the delivering
transporter. The Operator shall make all reasonable efforts to separate white goods and
tires from deliveries received on the tipping floor and ensure that the weight of these
materials is recorded and subtracted from the total tonnage used for billing purposes. The
County, in collaboration with the Operator, has designated sufficient area at each Facility
for the yard waste processing activities of Operator or other vendors according to the
Yard Waste Processing Area as outlined within the Lease Area. Such work space shall
not interfere with operations outside of the designed Yard Waste Processing Area as
outlined in Schedule G unless expressly approved by the Operator in writing. The
Operator, in conjunction with the County, has designated and outlined the Yard Waste
Processing Area at each terminal necessary for such activity. The area shall include
suitable storage capabilities.
3. Section 2.10 shall be amended as follows:
2.10 Storage.
Acceptable Waste shall be stored in the storage area designed for that purpose. No Solid Waste
delivered to the Operator may be stored outside the Facility buildings, except for loaded transfer
trailers awaiting removal to the Disposal Site and yard waste which has been or is awaiting
processing. Yard waste shall be stored in the designated Yard Waste Processing Area.
19
4. Section 6.35 shall be amended as follows:
6.35
The following documents shall be Schedules attached to this Contract and incorporated therein
by reference:
Schedule A: Special Waste
Schedule B: Operations and Disposal Fee Adjustment
Schedule C: Sworn Statement on Ethics
Schedule D: Drug -Free Workplace Form
Schedule E: Public Entity Crime Statement
Schedule F: Non -Collusion Affidavit Form
Schedule G: Lease Areas Reserved for the Operator and Designating Yard Waste Processing Area
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be executed by its
duly authorized representative on the day and year first above written.
Attest:
By:
� �S . re�tary m
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIC
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
County Administrator
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
BY:
nuntld . Hawkins
President
0
..�.a...a..,r.: 3amw
�trir �[� met �i ��ormq
1.=;-u I
p
arty us �
u
Ara %VMU A we
I f 'EX 'HI B 'IT
t/ C
��® M0III41! �AiN1100mOnW
..,.
1rl�71iYfilK> OIIIam pOltYlf i,7diUYY1 A=WYL 7ilf
Yia.wa �
to
4WD
0
4) m
< Ma
t
Le Cro . uj
';A- 2
m a.
co
log= a
= 0 ,o
Ml,.............. I
...........
Limbert-Christine
From: Kaplan, Ron <rkaplan@wm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:26 PM
To: Limbert-Christine
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Sullivan, Greg; Mantz, Kathy
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Christine -- I do not think we have a problem with the language. However, I do not have management buy in at this time
and even if I did it cannot be signed today as no one is here with authority to do so. In addition, management is looking
to resolve the CPIissue at the same time and we continue to believe that this something that can be easily accompllished
by a meeting with the appropriate persons/officials or by having the matter on the Commission agenda.
RONALD KAPLAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
AUTHORIZED HOUSE COUNSEL
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
2700 WILES ROAD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33073
954-984-2021 office
954-984-2057fax
954-410-4713 cell
Member NJ Bar only
NOTICE: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Limbert-Christine [mallto:Limbert Christine@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:30 PM
To: Kaplan, Ron
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Sullivan, Greg; Mantz, Kathy; Wilson -Kevin; Shillinger-Bob
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Ron,
I am following -up on my Friday March 27th email regarding the status of the amendment to the haul -out agreement. I
have yet to get a response to my email and at this point, it is imperative that we finalize the amendment.
Energy3 is ready to mobilize and begin yard waste processing services and while the County would like to finalize the
amendment to the haul -out agreement with WM before we issue the Notice to Proceed, we cannot postpone Energy3's
operations any further. In order to avoid any delay claim by Energy3, we need to issue our Notice to Proceed as soon as
possible. As you are aware, the parties have already agreed to the locations of the yard waste processing services as
designated in the maps attached to the amendment. The only remaining item was the indemnification language
requested by WM I anticipate that the indemnification language will be acrep table and thus there are
no outstanding items that will delay WM's execution of the amendment.
Since time it of the essence, please provide an executed copy of the amendment no later than the close
of business on Wednesday April 1, 2015. The County observes Good Friday and therefore this matter
needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Christine M. Limbert-Barrows
Asst. County Attomey
Monroe County Attorney's Office
1111 12th Street, Suite 408
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-3470
(305) 292-3516 (fax)
From: Limbert-Christine
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 4:09 PM
To: 'Kaplan, Ron'
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Sullivan, Greg; Mantz, Kathy; Wilson -Kevin; Shillinger-Bob
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Ron,
As you know the yard waste processing solicitation was on -going when this contract was entered into and it has always
been contemplated that an amendment to Article II may become necessary. Further to the point the parties agreed to
negotiate any modifications to Article II in good faith. (See provision 2.01 "Operator may transport the horticultural
waste out of county on terms agreed to with the County. This task is subject to the outcome of the County's solicitation
for yard waste processing that is currently underway, and may be amended accordingly. The parties agree to negotiate
any modifications to this Article in good faith")
In consideration of this contractual language this amendment should only address modifications to Article II and should
not be delayed by an unrelated "CPI matter" you refer to in your email.
The Board of County Commissioners has only authorized an amendment to Article II as it relates to implementation of
the yard waste processing program. As you are aware the yard waste processing services by our yard waste processing
vendor, i.e. Energy3, are to begin next week.
We can proceed with the Dispute Resolution Provision under Sec. 6.03 in an effort to resolve the "CPI matter", but it
would be contrary to the contractual language and agreement to act in good faith to stall this amendment and interfere
with the County's contract with Energy 3 for an unrelated matter.
Attached is the amendment with some minor modifications. If these corrections are acceptable, please provide
executed contract so that we can have the County Administrator also execute. I have attached a clean version of the
agreement for execution with maps attached which will be the revised "Schedule G" in addition to the marked -up
version. Thank you.
Christine M. Limbert-Barrows
Asst. County Attorney
Monroe County Attorney's Office
1111 12th Street, Suite 408
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-3470
(305) 292-3516 (fax)
From: Kaplan, Ron [mailto:rkaplanCaawm.coml
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Limbert-Christine
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Sullivan, Greg; Mantz, Kathy
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Christine — sorry for the delay in responding. Attached is a revised document. I accepted all your changes and redlined
from there. Waste Management needs an acceptable resolution of the CPI matter contemporaneously with the
finalization of this amendment. We are willing to utilize the dispute resolution provisions of the Haul Out agreement
(Sec. 6.03) to get there if you feel the need for a structure for the same. Please let me know — best by email as I am not
in the office
RONALD KAPLAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
AUTHORIZED HOUSE COUNSEL
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
2700 WILES ROAD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33073
954-984-2021 office
954-984-2057 fax
954-410-4713 cell
Member NJ Bar only
NOTICE: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Limbert-Christine (mailto:Limbert-Christine(cbMonroeCounty-FL.Govl
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 8:13 AM
To: Kaplan, Ron
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Wilson -Kevin
Subject: Re: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Can you please provide a status on approval of the draft agreement sent yesterday? If it has been been approved by
WM then I would like to present it to my Board for consideration. Regardless, please provide status of approval so that I
may report to them. If you need to discuss, I can be reached on my cell at (305)522-4989. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 16, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Kaplan, Ron <rkaplan@wm.com> wrote:
Christine — I spoke to management about the amendment. We are looking for some protective
language. See the redline attached. Let me know if this is acceptable. I am back in a mediation that may
last the rest of the day. I will circle back with you tomorrow. Thanks.
RONALD KAPLAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
AUTHORIZED HOUSE COUNSEL
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
2700 WILES ROAD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33073
954-984-2021 office
954-984-2057 fax
954-410-4713 cell
Member NJ Bar only
NOTICE: This a -mail message is for the sole use of the intended reciplent(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Limbert-Christine [mailto:Limbert-Christine(&MonroeCounty-FL.Govl
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:57 PM
To: Kaplan, Ron
Cc: Wilson -Kevin
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Ron,
Thank you for discussing the amendment to the WM haul -out agreement with me this afternoon.
To summarize our conversation,
1) As we discussed, WM and County will only be revising the haul -out agreement and the lease
agreement will remain in effect.
2) 1 confirmed with Kevin Wilson that Energy 3 is to provide an Operations Plan to the County and
WM on Monday.
3) 1 summarized your concerns regarding responsibility for any damage caused to the transfer
station roadway(s). Kevin advised that since we have other contractors working in the area,
specifically wastewater contractors, that any damage will be fixed by the party responsible for
causing the damage. If you need to include language to that effect in the amendment, we are
amenable to that.
4) As discussed our agreement with Energy3 provides for them to exclusively process yard waste
except in events of default or emergency. In either instance, I anticipate that WM as our current
haul -out contractor will process the yard waste at the County's request. While I think that the
contract language addresses this, if we need to clarify this in the future we can do so, but as
discussed it is probably best for the amendment to go forward as written.
Please provide a executed scan version to us as soon as you are able, but no later than Tuesday.
Thank you.
<image003Jpg>Christine M. Limbert-Barrows
Asst. County Attorney
Monroe County Attorney's Office
1111 12th Street, Suite 408
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-3470
(305) 292-3516 (fax)
From: Kaplan, Ron [mailto:rkaplanC@wm.coml
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 2:46 PM
To: Limbert-Christine
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
It probably is OK. But I need to see the detail. Thanks.
RONALD KAPLAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
AUTHORIZED HOUSE COUNSEL
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
2700 WILES ROAD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33073
954-984-2021 office
954-984-2057fax
11
9544104713 cell
Member NJ Bar only
NOTICE: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Limbert-Christine fmailto:Limbert-Christine(&MonroeCounty-FL.Govl
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:38 PM
To: Kaplan, Ron; Wilson -Kevin
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Mantz, Kathy; Sullivan, Greg; Shillinger-Bob
Subject: RE: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Ronald,
Thank you for your letter. I hope to have a final draft of the amendment to the haul -out agreement for
your review tomorrow. I am drafting the amendment with the understanding that the County's transfer
station sites will be shared by WM and our other vendor. I therefore have not revised the lease
agreement to remove the yard waste processing area from the lease agreement with WM, but rather
have only revised the haul -out agreement to designate the yard waste processing area to be used by the
other vendor.
Please advise if this Is acceptable.
Thank you.
<image005Jpg>Christine M. Limbert-Barrows
Asst. County Attorney
Monroe County Attorney's Office
1111 12th Street, Suite 408
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-3470
(305) 292-3516 (fax)
From: Kaplan, Ron [mailto:rkaplan(dwm.coml
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 9:09 AM
To: Wilson -Kevin; Limbert-Christine
Cc: Thompson, Guy; Mantz, Kathy; Sullivan, Greg
Subject: March 18 Agenda item - revisions to haul out agreement
Christine and Kevin — please find attached letter regarding negotiations for modifications of the Haul -
Out Agreement. Waste Management requests that we be included early in the process.
RONALD KAPLAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
AUTHORIZED HOUSE COUNSEL
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
2700 WILES ROAD
POMPANO BEACH, FL 33073
954-984-2021 office
954-984-2057 fax
954410-4713 cell
Member NJ Bar only
NOTICE: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
<Amendment 1 to the Amended and Restated Haul 3 10 15rmk red 03-16-15.docx>
Amendment 1 to the Amended and Restated
Haul -out, Transfer Stations Operations and Maintenance Agreement
This Amendment 1 to the Amended and Restated Haul -Out, Transfer Stations, Operations and
Maintenance Agreement dated May 21, 2014 is entered into this 18th day of March, 2015 between
Waste Management of Florida, Inc. ("WM") and Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
("County" or "BOCC").
WHEREAS, The County entered into the Amended and Restated Haul -Out, Transfer Stations, Operations
and Maintenance Agreement (Agreement) on May 21, 2014; and
WHEREAS, The County in furtherance of its Yard Waste processing program issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) on July 29`h, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on February 181h, 2014, the BOCC approved an interim Agreement for Yard Waste Processing
Services with Energy3, LLC (Vendor); and
WHEREAS, in order to further clarify the obligations of the parties, provide adequate space for yard
waste processing services at the County's transfer station sites and designate a Yard Waste Processing
Area at each site for use and access by Vendor, this Agreement is being modified;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual obligations undertaken
herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 2.05 shall be amended as follows:
2.05 County Visitation and Inspection of the Facility; Record Keeping and Reporting; Testing
(a) At any time during the term of this Agreement the County, its agents, and its representatives
shall have the right to inspect, visit and to take visitors through the Facility in order to inspect,
observe, and to permit others to observe the various services which the Operator performs,
provided that such inspection and visitations shall not interfere with the performance of the
Operator's obligations under this Agreement and are in compliance with Section 2.05(d)
At any time during the term of this Agreement the County shall have the right to allow other
vendor(s) to process the horticultural waste on behalf of the County, either at the transfer
stations located at Cudjoe, Long Key and Key Largo or at separate locations, as directed by the
County. The Operator shall permit such services by other vendor(s), pFeVided that sWeh seNie--
aPe—not within the Yard Waste Processing Area as outlined within the Leased Area of the
premises as outlined in Exhibit G attached, and provided that such service by other vendor(s)
shall not interfere with the performance of the Operator's obligations under this Agreement.
Such other vendors shall obtain their own permits, insurance, bonding and other applicable
requirements. The vendor(s) may begin operations during the State permitting process, as
allowed by Florida DEP regulations. Each such vendor shall provide to the County.(with a copy
to Operator) an Operating Plan that sets forth vendor's obligations, responsibilities and that
demonstrates that vendor's activities will not interfere with Operator's performance. The
Operating Plan shall be subject to the approval of Countyand the Count h,,,adl cnnslder 6n its
1__,.
Formatted. Underline
Formatted: Underline � .�
approval process shall ba s4ffi to the reasonable -good faith ca nments-&PoFwai -el: of
Operator. Such vendors shall be responsible for and shall indemnify County and Operator
against claims, losses, and costs incurred by County or Operator arising or related to vendor's
acts, omissions or willful misconduct including but not limited to those that cause personal
injury (including death), property damage, including but not limited to, damage to structures,
improvements and internal roadways of the Facility, and contamination, pollution or other
adverse environmental impact at or near the Facility. The Operator shall be FespeRsible'er aml
4a indemnify Gewmy and such vendors) against claims, losses, and costs to the same extent
it indemnifies the County pursuant to Section 6.04(a) of Agreement, notwithstanding that
6.O4(a) of the Agreement provides that the Operator's indemnity in no event shall inure the
benefit of any third party.
2. Section 2.06(b) shall be amended as follows:
(b) Composition of Acceptable Waste. The County shall not be required to guarantee the
composition of any given shipment of Acceptable Waste, but horticultural waste which is to be
processed by Operator at County's request shall be segregated by the delivering transporter.
The Operator shall make all reasonable efforts to separate white goods and tires from deliveries
received on the tipping floor and insure that the weight of these materials is recorded and
subtracted from the total tonnage used for billing purposes. The County in collaboration with
the Operator has designated shall-iasUre that sufficient area is FRade available at each Facility for
the Yard waste ffmk i processing activities of Operator or other vendors according to the Yard
Waste Processing Area as outlined within the Lease Area. Such work space shall not interfere
with oyeratio.n the L.ewAd--'-- of the lease aFea outside of the designed Yard Waste
Processing Area as outlined in Schedule G unless expressly approved by the Operator in writing.
The Operator in conjunction with the County has shah designated and outlined the Yard Waste
Processing Aarea at each terminal necessary for such activity. The area shall include suitable
storage capabilities.
3. Section 2.10 shall be amended as follows:
2.10 Storage.
Acceptable Waste shall be stored in the storage area designed for that purpose. No Solid Waste
delivered to the Operator may be stored outside the Facility buildings, except for loaded transfer trailers
awaiting removal to the Disposal Site and yard waste which has been or is awaiting ehipping-processing.
Yard waste shall be stored in the designated Yard Waste Processing Area
4. Section 6.35 shall be amended as follows:
6.35 SCHEDULES
The following documents shall be Schedules attached to this Contract and incorporated therein by
reference:
Schedule A: Special Waste
Schedule B: Operations and Disposal Fee Adjustment
Schedule C: Sworn Statement on Ethics
Schedule D: Drug -Free Workplace Form
Schedule E: Public Entity Crime Statement
Schedule F: Non -Collusion Affidavit Form
Schedule G: Lease Areas Reserved for the Operator and Designating Yard Waste Processing Area
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each parry has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized
representative on the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Attest: Amy Heavilin, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
Attest:
By:
Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
By:
Timothy B. Hawkins
President
Please note:
S•F" a thFaug : text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The green highlighted is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
W M.
Amendment 2 to the Amended and Restated
Haul -out, Transfer Stations Operations and Maintenance Agreement
This Amendment 2 to the Amended and Restated Haul -Out, Transfer Stations, Operations
and Maintenance Agreement dated May 21, 2014 is entered into this day of May, 2015
between Waste Management of Florida, Inc. ("WM") and Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners ("County" or `BOCC").
WHEREAS, the County entered into the Amended and Restated Haul -Out, Transfer
Stations, Operations and Maintenance Agreement (Agreement) on May 21, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Board directed at its April 151h, 2015 meeting for staff to bring back an
amendment for consideration; and
WHEREAS, by entering into this Amendment the parties agree to amend the written
contract relating to the haul -out rates for municipal solid waste (MSW) and yard waste; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014 the County received notice that effective January 1,
2015, WM would redirect the County's yard waste to WM's disposal site other than WM's
waste -to -energy (WTE) plant at reduced rate of $77.50; and
WHEREAS, in order to assist the County in reaching its recycling goal of 75% by 2020,
language will be amended to reflect that WM will dispose the County's municipal solid waste
(MSW) at a WTE plant or in a manner to ensure that the County's overall recycling goal is
reached and to also manage the County's yard waste in a manner that produces recycling credits
of 75% or better; and
WHEREAS, in order to further clarify the obligations of the parties, this Agreement is
being modified as set forth herein;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual obligations
undertaken herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 3.01 shall be amended as follows:
EXHIBIT
7.
Please note:
S•F" a thFaug : text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The green highlighted is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
W M.
3.01 Operation and Disposal Fee.
The County, effective October 1, 2014, shall pay :s tiffe tl_ ra_4r the Operator
an operation and disposal fee of $94.5087.15 per ton of waste delivered to the
Facility and such waste shall only processed at the Operator's owned or
contracted Waste -to -Energy (WTE) Plant in Broward County, Florida or such
other Operator permitted facilities that produce 60% or better recycling credits for
the Count or that otherwise meets the County's 75% recycling goal by 2020. 1e
20114-and eEach October 1 thereafter, except as specified below, throughout the
remaining term(s) of this Amended and Restated Monroe County Haul Out,
Transfer Stations Operation and Maintenance Agreement, the operations and
disposal fee shall be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index
depicted in Schedule B of this Amended and Restated Monroe County Haul Out,
Transfer Stations Operations and Maintenance Agreement.
Comment [11]: WM sold several WTE plants and
now contracts for use of such WTE plant(s). This
additional language will allowfor the MSW to be
processed at WTE plants contracted for use by WM.
Comment [I2]: This language will allow for the
County's MSW to be disposed at WM's landfill, since
that facility produces electricity and thus produces
recycling credits. The highlighted language in green
was added by County staff to ensure that the
county's recycling credit for MSW is maintained to
reach an overall recycling goal of 75% by 2020 as is
intended to be included in this amendment.
Effective January 1, 2015, through February 18 May 18, g00, the Operator / Comment [I3]: 8y adding February 18, 2015 this
redirected the Count yard waste to the Operator's disposal site/facllltto be amendment will only allow for reduced rate from
January 1, 2015 through February 18, 2015 rather
used as daily ground cover, mulch or to be composted at a reduced disposal rate than May 18", 2015 (the date of beginning
of $77.50. operations for Energy3) even though the yard waste
is still being disposed of and redirected WM.
The Operator and County shall reconcile and adjust, if necessary, the payments
made by the County for services provided by Operator so that the parties are
assured the correct compensation has been paid by the County to the Operator and
that the County has received credit for any ovefpayment for yard waste disposal.
The County currently contracts with another vendor for yard waste processing
services. The vendor is scheduled to begin its operations on May 181h, 2015. In the
event of default by the vendor, termination of the agreement or in an emergency,
the County at its option mayby written notification request for the Operator to
dispose the County's yard waste out of the County at one of following permitted
and licensed siteAacilities�: . The disposal rate for such
waste is $77.50 which will be adjusted annually for changes in the CPI pursuant
to the methodology in �Schedulr B. The yard waste shall only be disposed at the
Operator's permitted and licensed disposal site/facility, if the Operator guarantees
EXHIBIT
7.
Comment [I4]: The disposal facilities to be used
by WM for yard waste needs to be added by WM
Comment [I5]: WM added CPI adjustment for
yard waste disposal rate
Please note:
S•F" a thFaug : text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The green highlighted is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
W M.
a minimum 75% recycling credit is received by the County for disposal of the
County's yard waste.
The Operator represents that it will obtain recycling credits for the County for
disposal of the County's MSW and yard waste to support the County's efforts to
meet the goal of recycling 75% of its waste by the year 2020.
This Amendment shall be effective May 20, 2015.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly
authorized representative on the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Attest: Amy Heavilin, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
Attest:
By:
Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
By:
Timothy B
President
EXHIBIT
7.
Hawkins
JUII•
•
Please note:
text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
WM.
The blue highlighted language was revised/added as follows:WM requested the follow revision: ;jiL
_
to shall only be disposed at the Operator's permitted and licensed
•r erator uses commerciall reasonable efforts to seek to obtain the •..
oft
The County requested to incorporate CPI waivers under Section 3.03 as follows AND to change the
effective date to October 1,2014:The disposal rate for such yard waste is$77.50 which,
bets will be adiusted annually for changes in the CPI pursuant to the
methodology in Schedule B
AND
This Amendment shall be likroiM effective May 20,2015.
Amendment 2 to the Amended and Restated
Haul-out,Transfer Stations Operations and Maintenance Agreement
This Amendment 2 to the Amended and Restated Haul-Out, Transfer Stations, Operations
and Maintenance Agreement dated May 21,2014 is entered into this day of May,2015
between Waste Management of Florida, Inc. ("WM") and Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners("County"or"BOCC").
WHEREAS, the County entered into the Amended and Restated Haul-Out, Transfer
Stations, Operations and Maintenance Agreement(Agreement)on May 21,2014;and
WHEREAS,the Board directed at its April 15th, 2015 meeting for staff to bring back an
amendment for consideration;and
WHEREAS, by entering into this Amendment the parties agree to amend the written
contract relating to the haul-out rates for municipal solid waste(MSW)and yard waste;and
WHEREAS,on December 16,2014 the County received notice that effective January 1,
2015, WM would redirect the County's yard waste to WM's disposal site other than WM's
waste-to-energy(WTE)plant at reduced rate of$77.50;and
WHEREAS,in order to assist the County in reaching its recycling goal of 75%by 2020,
language will be amended to reflect that WM will dispose the County's municipal solid waste
(MSW) at a WTE plant or in a manner to ensure that the County's overall recycling goal is
reached and to also manage the County's yard waste in a manner that produces recycling credits
of 75%or better;and
WHEREAS, in order to further clarify the obligations of the parties, this Agreement is
being modified as set forth herein;
1
Please note:
Strike-through text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The imminsige is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
WM.
The blue highlighted language was revised/added as follows:WM requested the follow revision:
• d waste shall on] ° be dissosed at the Operator's •ermitted and licensed dis osal sit=
- •.er.tor uses co -r iall -. ••.. - - • • . •. .'.� -_ -s..z:,,:.:�•,:
The County requested to incorporate CPI waivers under Section 3.03 as follows AND to change the
effective date to October 1,2014:The disposal rate for such yard waste is$77.50 which,
will be adiusted annually for changes in the CPI pursuant to the
methodology in Schedule B
AND
This Amendment shall be-effective .
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the above premises and the mutual obligations
undertaken herein,the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 3.01 shall be amended as follows:
3.01 Operation and Disposal Fee.
The County,effective October 1,2014, shall pay is-sufreetly-paying the Operator
an operation and disposal fee of$S4 5087.15 per ton of waste delivered to the
Facility and such waste shall only be processed at the Operator's owned or
'contracted' Waste-to-Energy (WTEZ Plant in Broward County. Florida or such comment[Ia]:wM sold several WTE plants and
other Operator permitted facilities that produce recycling credits for now contracts for use of such WTE plant(s).This
additional language will allow for the MSW to be
the'County' .The processed at WTE plants contracted for use by WM.
Comment[I2]:This language will allow for the
2011 and-eEach October 1 thereafter, except as specified below, throughout the County's MSW to be disposed at WM's landfill,since
remaining term(s) of this Amended and Restated Monroe County Haul Out, that facility produces electricity and thus produces
recycling credits.The highlighted language in green
Transfer Stations Operation and Maintenance Agreement, the operations and was added by County staff to ensure that the
disposal fee shall be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index county's recycling credit for MSW is maintained to
reach an overall recycling goal of 75%by 2020 as Is
depicted in Schedule B of this Amended and Restated Monroe County Haul Out, intended to be included in this amendment.
Transfer Stations Operations and Maintenance Agreement.
Effective January 1, 2015, through February 18-, 120151, the Operator - Comment[I3]:By adding February 18,2015 this
redirected the County's yard waste to the Operator's disposal site/facility to be amendment will only allow for reduced rate from
January 1,2015 through February 18,2015 rather
used as daily ground cover, mulch or to be composted at a reduced disposal rate than May 18'h,2015(the date of beginning
of$77.50. operations for Energy3)even though the yard waste
is still being disposed of and redirected WM.
The Operator and County shall reconcile and adjust, if necessary, the payments
made by the County for services provided by Operator so that the parties are
assured the correct compensation has been paid by the County to the Operator and
that the County has received credit for any overpayment for yard waste disposal.
2
Please note:
Strike-through text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The__is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
WM.
The blue highlighted language was revised/added as follows: WM requested the follow revision:
yard waste shall only be disposed at the Operator"s permitted and licensed disposal site
if the Operator uses commerciall_ •.f - - i_+. to s-ek to obt 1_ ••
7.°/ _�,_ - lin_credit for is rec_'"
The County requested to incorporate CPI waivers under Section 3.03 as follows AND to change the
effective date to October 1,2014:The disposal rate for such yard waste is$77.50 which,
specifi will be adjusted annually for changes in the CPI pursuant to the
methodology in Schedule B
AND
This Amendment shall be-effective May 20,2015.
The County currently contracts with another vendor for yard waste processing
services.The vendor is scheduled to begin its operations on May 18's,2015.In the
event of default by the vendor,termination of the agreement or in an emergency.
the County at its option may by written notification request for the Operator to
dispose the Count 's yard waste out of the County at one of following permitted
and licensed sites p acilitie The dis r osal rate for such and Comment[I4]:The disposal facilities to be used
waste is 77.50 which. _y ": will be ad'usted by WM for yard waste needs to be added by WM
annual] for chan'es in the CPI pursuant to the methodology i n Schedul B. ---{comment[I51:WM added CPI adjustment for
a 4 be k .el.. 's permitt l yard waste disposal rate
facili if the Ope'.for uses co` ally reasonable e s e
to obtain the 75 t
County for disposal oLthe County's vac
The Operator represents that it will obtain recycling credits for the County for
disposal of the County's-yard waste to support the County's efforts to
meet the goal of recycling 75%of its waste by the year 2020.
2. This Amendment shall be-effective 110 CI ay 20,2015.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,each party has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly
authorized representative on the day and year first above written.
(SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest:Amy Heavilin,Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk Mayor
Attest: WASTE MANAGEMENT INC.OF FLORIDA
3
Please note:
Strike-t#eugh text reflects language deleted from original agreement.
Underlined text reflects added language.
The yellow highlighted is language added by WM's attorney.
The is language added by County staff/attorney in response to language added by
WM.
The blue highlighted language was revised/added as follows:WM requested the follow revision:
I s- has-ra • u - .uIIerciall . -:, • •t • - • •• • s. ..., .,�,., '•
The County requested to incorporate CPI waivers under Section 3.03 as follows AND to change the
effective date to October 1,2014:The disposal rate for such yard waste is$77.50 which,
will be adjusted annually for changes in the CPI pursuant to the
methodology in Schedule B
AND
This Amendment shall be-effective May 20,2015.
By: By:
Secretary Timothy B. Hawkins
President
4
' I
Direction on the following items:
1) Amount of.MSW.disposal rate
$87.15 (amount requested by WM) or some other agreed to rate
2) Effective Date of the revised disposal rate
October 1, 2014 (retroactive effective date requested by WM) or some other agreed to
effective date
3) Permissible Disposal facilities for Solid Waste (this does not include yard waste)
In addition to WTE plants ("Operator/WM owned or contracted WTE plants in Broward
County")
Other permitted facilities to include:
Landfill at Monarch Hill (Requested as disposal site by WM but not agreeable to 60%
recycling credit since the recycling credit generated at Monarch Hill varies)
Staff has cautioned disposal at a Monarch Landfill since it will negatively affect the
County's overall sustainability efforts (GHG emissions are higher at landfill)
WM has requested or agrees to the following language: "Other permitted facilities that
produce recycling credit for the County or that otherwise meets the County's 75%
recycling goal by 2020"
4) Permissible Disposal facilities for Yard Waste
WTE plants (operated owed or contracted WTE plants in Broward.County)
Composting Facilities (operated owned or contracted composting facilities)
Landfill at Monarch Hill
In addition to the sustainability concerns stated above, County staff has recommended that
the disposal of yard waste at the Landfill (Monarch Hill) only be permissible when the yard
waste is used as ground cover and that such use is verified by DEP
WM has requested that language be amended to read "The yard waste shall only be disposal at the
Operator's permitted and licensed disposal site/facility, if the Operator uses commercially
reasonable efforts to seek to obtain the 75% recycling credit for the County for disposal of the
County's yard waste"
rather than current
"The yard waste shall be only disposed at the Operator's permitted and licensed disposal 'o
site/facility, if the Operator guarantees a minimum 75% recycling credit is received by the County
for disposal of the County's yard waste and that the yard waste if taken to a landfill, only be used
d
as ground cover and such use shall be verified by DEP."