AN ORDINANCE authorizing the CEO/General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., for waste disposal and transportation services; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.
The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. And Item one Council. Vote 118 932 Authorizing CEO, General Manager and CEO of Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the Contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. for Waste Disposal and Transportation Services and many Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, changing preparations for Seattle Public Utilities ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report with councilmembers Herbold, Sawant and O'Brien in favor. And Councilmember Harrell opposed. Thank you. So at this point, I'm going to turn it to Councilmember O'Brien, who will substitute for Councilmember Herbert Herbold. Just to forewarn everybody is to be transparent. There's likely Councilmember O'Brien will move for at least a one week hold, and I'll I'll support that. But after he makes the motion and I will second it, we just have some discussion for the public to sort of know what we're doing here. So, Councilmember O'Brien, I'll give you the microphone. All right. So because Councilmember Herbold, who chairs this committee, is absent today and summit can't. Hear you back. So let's just take a let's just take that deep breath that Charles was telling us for a minute here. And. Well, I think it's getting a little quieter here. Get a little quieter. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think I can hear you now. Great. So I don't think it's being closed is going to help much. I will speak as clearly and loudly as I can, because Councilmember Herbold, who chairs this committee, is absent today and some additional concerns were raised during public comment. I would like to move that. We hold council bill 118932 for one week until April 3rd and second. That I guess now would be the time. Just have a short discussion. But I'm just asking my colleagues, we heard some public comments. Just look closely at the divided reports. What I said earlier this morning during the briefing was that I had some concerns about how the utility was proceeding, sort of a fait accompli by the time it got to us. And if we believe that in RFP process as a way to to test the market, particularly our contract has been so long standing then has the utility demonstrated that now would be the time not to to to push the market? And in fairness to Councilmember Herbold, they're asking a lot of questions, but I think it would make sense to at least hold it off for a week. We heard some public comment and we could discuss it informally and then we'll see where we are on on a week's vote. So I do support the hold any further comments on the motion to hold? Councilmember Johnson. You know, I would just say I don't serve on the committee. So an opportunity for us to have another week of discussion about this would be helpful from my perspective. You know, when I read through the Divided report, the contract now being open for bids since 1990, I could tell you a joke about what I was doing in 1990, but it involved role playing games and other things that 12 year olds do. So from my perspective, you know, having a chance for us to work with us, for you to better understand the timing of when the next open bid process would look like if it wasn't in 2019 would be helpful. And also to better understand the financial implications, as we have dug into this a little bit, making this decision next week may forfeit some of the perceived savings here for the ratepayers and the $1.2 million identified in the report. And so I want to make sure that we have a good understanding about what that tradeoff would look like, too. So I don't object to holding it for another week, and I think that would give us a chance to get a little better handle the decision. Thank you. Councilman Johnson. Councilman Burgess. Thank you. I also will support the hold in talking to the department. We may lose a few days value of the reduction in costs, but we will not lose the entire amount. So that's important. The comment about, you know, it hasn't been. Negotiated for 30 plus years. Is an interesting one. To me. But when this contract. Was bid and the respondents to that RFP participated in that process, they knew they were bidding on a 30 plus year contract. So I think it's a bit misleading to imply that there's something wrong with this process or that we didn't follow the rules, or that this is an unusual length for a contract of this type. This was a 33 or 34 year bid with some options given to the city to get out of that contract if the city wanted to. And the reason this contract is so long is. Because hauling of garbage and arranging of infrastructure for that is extremely expensive and requires significant capital. Investment. Which requires a long term contract. So I don't I don't buy. Into that argument. About the fact that this is a. Long contract. It was designed to be. A long contract. And the companies that participated in that process originally. Knew that and competed fairly for that contract. Back when it was awarded and I think signed in the spring of 1991. So I wasn't going to get into the merits, but I strongly disagree that the option to renew a contract is both legally and practically quite distinct from a 30 year contract that in the course of 30 years, emerging technologies exist, competitors exist. Facts and circumstances exist. So when anyone responds to a contract that has a series of options, which is what that was, that is well within the city's rights to examine each option on its merits, decide whether it makes sense. And just because the successful bidder wanted a 30 year deal is quite distinct from saying it was a 30 year deal at the beginning. In fact, the utility made this point when they put out for bid the recycle contract that they wanted to test the market. So it seemed to me that whenever SPU made the decision to renegotiate with the successful bidder, they should have at least let the council know some time ago so we could look at what other competitors are out there. In fact, a more recent competitors recently come into the market again, offering new technology, new solutions. So it's not misleading to suggest that an option to revisit the original contract is somehow a you know, I'm not saying you're saying it's a bad thing. To me, it's a smart thing to do. In this case, we did not do that at all. It's going to come to. Okay customer back. Thank you very. Much. We're just we're just holding it for a week, by the way. I would probably have the same argument next next week, but go ahead. Thank you. Well, since I won't be here with you next week, I would like to ask the department to give us some information on four things. So I chaired the Seattle Public Utilities Committee two years ago, and at that point we went out for bid on recycling. And it was a big deal because we wanted to make sure we were getting the best rates, the best technology. And we also, during the time I was overseeing it, went out for bid for the composting contracts. And we really insisted that it be done in the state of Washington. I felt that was responsible. And also we got better deals for the ratepayers. So here's the questions that I would like for Seattle Public Utilities to come back and provide us with the information this week. First of all, if we are going to be looking at options in the next five years, what can we do between now and then to reduce the amount of garbage that we are creating here in our city? We've done well to promote recycling. I don't know what we have been doing to reduce the amount of garbage that we are sending out of our city. Secondly, I'm interested in the rail transportation contracts. We know that BNSF works for one of the companies and Union Pacific for another. I'd like to know what are our options to negotiate those kind of rail transportation contracts? Also, I would like to know more about the methane capture options both at the Oregon side and in the Golden Dale site, because we know even here in King County, we capture methane and then sell it back. To Puget Sound four for electricity and we get a credit for that. So I'd like to know what are the options? And then lastly, the reason I think that considering another evaluation and going out for bid is even if we don't do it right now, if we if we make the decision to proceed. But to do it as in a very reasonable length of time, because we know that any time we do that, we get the market bring the market to bear and our ratepayers benefit. I think right now the argument is that they've negotiated a 7 to $8 million reprieve over the next couple of years, but there may be more. And I would like to know either now or as they go forward, depending upon what the answers are in the next week, what that can look like, because we definitely want our rate payers to benefit. Thank you, Councilman Baxter. Yeah, thank you. So all those in favor of holding council bill 1189324 weeks say I oppose the EIS. Have to hold it for one week. Please read the next agenda item into the record. The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee. Agenda Item two Resolution 317 39 expressing the city's close commitment to being a more age friendly city under the criteria established by the World Health Organization and the AARP, Network of Age Friendly Communities Committee recommends that the full council adopt the resolution as amended.