2018-10-16 Council PKT - Special CITY OF
�. Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Council Chambers - City Hall
October 16, 2018 — 5:30 p.m.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. STUDY SESSION
a. Solid Waste Survey Results and Procurement Process Feedback
• Staff Report
• Citizen Comment(3 minutes)
• Council Discussion/Questions
4. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Meetings are wheelchair accessible; and assisted listening devices for use in the Council Chambers are
available upon request to the City Clerk. Regular Meetings are recorded and televised live on Government Access
Channel 21. To view Council Meetings online please visit www.cityoffederalway.com.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 16, 2018
TO: City Council
VIA: Jim Ferrell,Mayor�<'� 1di/V J.C./
FROM: EJ Walsh, P.E., Public Works Director `iv
Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste&Recycling Coordinator,.„
SUBJECT: Study Session: Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement Process—
Survey Results and Overview of Draft Contract Provisions and Service Alternatives
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This memorandum is an update of the Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Contract
procurement process. A Professional Services contract is in place for consultant assistance with this
process (funded per the adopted 2018 budget) and there are no other immediate financial impacts.
However, depending on rate or service cost outcomes resulting from this procurement process, the City
may wish to consider whether supplemental funding could be generated through the Contract's
Administrative Fee which currently funds the City's management of this utility, litter control services,
and recycling outreach services among other items. One potential concept is to dedicate additional
funding to ongoing right-of-way maintenance projects (such as overlay projects) related to road use
impacts resulting from providing collection services.
TIMELINE:
The current Comprehensive Garbage, Recyclables and Compostables Collection Agreement ends in
August 2020. Council Resolution 18-740 approves completing a Request for Proposals (RFP) process.
This RFP process is primarily focused on ensuring that a competent service provider and contract
structure is in place to operate this utility. The service provider is responsible for providing trucks and
containers, operating an adequate maintenance yard and facility, hiring/training personnel, running a
variety of collection operations, hauling, processing and/or disposing of various materials, and providing
customer service/billing capacity. The City's procurement process tasks include:
• Conducting the related Solid Waste Services Survey,
• Developing a new base contract and RFP including Service Alternatives,
• Soliciting and incorporating hauler input into the documentation,
• Factoring in sufficient time for proponents to prepare responsive proposals and realistically roll-
out services, and
• Evaluating proposals and rate impacts in helping to inform the City's process for approving the
contract award.
Procurement process milestones include:
t f
Nov. 20, 2018 City Council—authorization to solicit
proposals via the RFP process
Before end of Dec. 2018 Prepare procurement documents
Complete legal review
Factor in Industry Review input
Jan. 2019—April 2019 Proposal preparation period
Prepare responses to proponent questions and
related Addenda
April 2019—June 2019 Proposal Review—Evaluation Committee and
qualitative scoring
June—July 2019 City Council review and approval process
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 2
Before end of July 2019 Execute new contract with successful
proponent
Aug. 2019—Aug. 2020 Contract transition and mobilization
Sept. 1,2020 New contract and services begin
The new base contract establishes the core services on which rate proposals will be developed. The
memorandum then outlines Service Alternatives, including those that will allow the City to better
evaluate cost versus benefit of various service configurations.
SURVEY REGARDING SOLID WASTE SERVICES:
While discussing Council Resolution 18-740, Council directed staff to conduct a survey to seek input
from area residents and businesses. The basic survey is included as an attachment to this memorandum.
The results of the survey provide information regarding general preferences about how services are
provided as well as suggestions for various service options. A total of 134 surveys were submitted. With
approximately 20,000 solid waste accounts in the City, this represents a relatively small sample, so results
should be considered anecdotal since they are not statistically valid.
The basic outcomes of the survey are shown in the following bar charts with a brief overview of
comments. Depending on the topic, pros and cons are also outlined. Many related service options are
further discussed later in the memorandum, rounding out this overview of the base contract and draft
Service Alternatives. Comments have been paraphrased to put them into context with this memorandum,
but the complete survey results and comments are available at G:\PW\SWR\Survey.
Service Priorities:
Service Priorities
Cost Reliability Expanded Customer Same
Recycling Service Schedule
Respondents ranked Cost as the highest priority, followed by Reliability, while the three remaining
categories were essentially tied: Expanding Recycling Services, Customer Service, and Keeping Current
Service Schedules. Comments provided by respondents include:
• If service is not affordable,these other priorities don't really matter
• Provide a senior or fixed-income discount
• Like receiving services from Waste Management
• Web-based resources could be improved
• Make curbside recycling service weekly
• Expand the list of recycled items
• Expand bulky item collection services
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 3
o "Cost"
Not surprisingly, Cost is the highest priority. By embarking on this competitive RFP process, the City is
working to meet this objective. Related comments focused on the potential for senior or disabled
discounts, maintaining affordability of service, and potential ways to increase services — but without
increasing cost.
o "Reliability" and"Customer Service"
These are closely related. Respondent comments value the reliability of service. Several comments
indicated satisfaction with current services,while others felt there is room for improvement.
o "Expanded Recycling"
Comments included requesting that more materials be added to the list of targeted recyclables, as well as
increasing the frequency of curbside collection to weekly(instead of every-other-week).
Pros: Increased recycling frequency will improve the timeliness of recovery from snow and ice service
delays. This would also increase the convenience factor for households that generate lots of recyclables,
and there would be no need for the curbside recycling calendar to remind customers of their respective
set-out schedule.
Cons: Based on results from other RFP processes, increasing recycling service to weekly will add about
$3.50 to$4.00 per month to the base residential bill.
One comment noted recent recycling market changes, questioning what happens to the recyclables once
collected. The reality is that these recyclables are processed and marketed, in part because the contract
requires it, and in part due to the economic incentive of avoided disposal cost. Our current contractor has
found viable alternative markets in spite of export restrictions, and the statewide hauler association
encourages continuing recycling practices.
o "Same Schedule"
The base contract will continue to require all residential collection services (garbage, compostables, and
recyclables) to be provided on the same consistent weekday. There is a potential for service days to be
adjusted if the new contractor proposes a more efficient collection schedule.
Mandatory Enrollment in Services:
Mandatory Garbage
Strongly Support Nuetral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Opposed
Survey respondents support requiring everyone to subscribe to collection services. Over 90% of those
who filled out the survey are already garbage service subscribers, so they see firsthand the services and
convenience their rates pay for.
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 4
Pros: Mandatory subscription may reduce illegal dumping into paying customers' containers, and may
discourage storing debris and/or piling-up excess garbage on site. It may result in higher route density and
more revenue flow to the service provider, potentially driving rates lower during a competitive
procurement process.
Cons: Those with convenient or inexpensive legal ways to manage their trash may oppose being required
to sign-up.There are valid reasons not to sign-up for service including self-hauling and sharing service, so
exemptions to mandatory service could be established. If enforcement authority is not granted to the
contractor, a funding source for City enforcement may need to be identified. Mandatory sign-up does
little to reduce litter in right-of-way or mitigate situations where excessive on-site trash accumulations
(such as hoarding)rise to the level of code enforcement action.
Further discussion on mandatory service appears in the Service Alternatives section of this memorandum.
Embedding Yard/Food Waste Services into Basic Garbage Service:
Bundled Yard Waste Service
Strongly Support Nuetral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Opposed
Food/yard waste collection is currently optional at an additional fee. In King County, most large cities
"bundle" the cost of food/yard waste collection into the garbage fee (similar to how curbside recycling
services are bundled or embedded with basic garbage service).
Pros: More food scraps,compostable paper, and plant trimmings will be diverted from higher cost landfill
disposal to lower cost compost processing, which also translates to higher recycling diversion levels.
Increased collection efficiency and decreased disposal cost combine to create downward pressure on
service rates. Those currently participating should see a relative decrease compared to the subscription
based approach.
Cons: Those who are new to this service may see a rate increase, unless they take advantage of recycling
food/yard waste capacity and are able to reduce their garbage container service. Those who have no yard
waste (condo residents) or who do not want to practice food recycling may be opposed, even with a
smaller cart offered.
This item is discussed further in the Service Alternatives section of this memorandum.
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 5
Every-other-week Garbage Collection Service:
Every-Other-Week Garbage
r' l
Strongly Support Nuetral Do Not Strongly
Support Support Opposed
Currently household garbage and food/yard waste are picked up weekly while recycling is collected
every-other-week. In a few cities, food/yard waste (heavy, wet, and compostable items) get picked up
weekly,but recycling and garbage(mainly the leftover dry"rubbish")are picked up on alternating weeks.
Pros: This approach decreases service cost by reducing the number of trips needed to provide the three
types of residential service. It also encourages more composting of food scraps and yard trimmings.
Cons: Survey comments tend to not support this option, especially due to concerns about odor or rodent
issues, and other trash accumulation problems. Commenters also value the certainty that what you put in
the garbage will always be gone within a week.
Based on the level of opposition shown via the Survey, other Service Alternatives may be more
worthwhile exploring.
New Services:
New Services
I I
Litter Recycle Lowest Bulky Item No Weekly Storefront
Services More Possible Pickup Changes to Recycling &
Materials Rates Current Recycling
Drop-off
Respondents ranked various services — with the caveat that services may cost more. Respondents also
suggested services they'd like to see more of.
o "Litter Services"
The most popular option was to increase litter control services. Later in the memorandum there are details
on how the RFP process could potentially increase funding for litter services in a manner that proponents
could provide under the new contract. One example would be to install and empty litter cans along
downtown streets. Another option would be for more comprehensive litter control services provided at a
similar scale as the litter collection element in the Public Works Department's right-of-way Landscape
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 6
Maintenance contract. Historically, the Administrative Fee deposited into the Solid Waste Fund has
funded this service(and is anticipated to continue to do so).
o "Recycle More Materials"
A mechanism in the contract could determine ways to add (or remove) recyclable items from the
"accepted list." Proponents could identify the rate impact of adding or removing recyclables. Proponents
could also suggest alternative approaches (like drop-off options) for low volume or hard to manage
recyclables. In conjunction with this option, several comments supported moving to weekly curbside
recycling collection,despite the likely higher cost.
Due to the volatility of recycling markets, another element added into the new base contract will focus on
sharing financial risk related to the markets for processed recyclables. Under a shared risk scenario,
ratepayers would benefit when recycling markets recover, while proposed rates would not need to factor
in as much risk to mitigate for lower revenues if recycling markets decline.
o "Lowest Possible Rates"and"No Changes to Current Service"
These closely related items coincide with the popularity of"Cost"under the Service Priorities section.
With the economy booming and labor and material costs on the rise,it is likely that higher rates will result
from this RFP. In general, services cost more over time, and if a contract has been in place for many years
there may be some "sticker shock" when the new contract adjusts rates to the market. The City's RFP
process isn't focused on additional or new services merely for the sake of change. Instead, the RFP
focuses on ways to increase efficiency that drives costs down, and options that divert wastes from the
landfill.The underlying theme: "driving costs down"is a core part of this RFP process.
o "Bulky Item Pick-up"
Comments were supportive:
• Add more bulky materials and curbside collection options
• Don't have a truck so would be happy to have bulky items hauled away
• Bundle the cost into the garbage fee
• Make it inexpensive to use the bulky item service
To address this at least part way, the new base contract will set fees for managing bulky items similar to
the disposal fees charged at County transfer stations. This may help reduce the number of bulky items
dumped in the right-of-way. A Service Alternative could explore the potential for on-call or annual bulky
materials collection services—the cost of which would be built-into base rates.
o "Storefront& Recycling Drop-offs"
While this option saw the least support on the "New Services" list, it relates to a common comment:
asking for more recycling drop-off options.
Some related comments include:
• The City doesn't need"fancy"but needs"functional"
• I like the"storefront"that is available in other cities
• Provide a free recycling center
• Make styrofoam recycling more convenient
Pros: The "storefront" concept is used in other cities, with the contractor providing a business office
featuring customer service staff who can resolve billing issues and process services changes. The
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 7
"storefront" offers a venue for dropping off some recyclable items (like stryrofoam or batteries) that may
not be efficient for curbside collection,and a place to purchase recycled-content items.
Cons: While comments suggested that more recycling centers or drop-offs would be useful, recycling
centers are costly to site, set-up, and operate. While a series of drop-offs may be less costly than
providing recycling at the curb, the lack of convenience makes this suggestion an impractical step
backward compared to the status quo. There would be less recycling overall, and unstaffed drop-offs can
be prone to illegal dumping and high contamination rates.
Options for proponents to provide more drop-off recycling services may be addressed through a Service
Alternative.
o Other Suggestions and Comments...
Some suggestions for alternative services and related comments are paraphrased below. Similar
comments are grouped, including a few that contradict one another. Additional explanations follow in
parentheses.
• Provide a Senior Discount and/or Disabled Person Discount (The current contract does not
include this type of discount, but the Utility Tax rebate is available. Carry-out service to the curb
is provided at no added cost to those in need, and this will continue under the new core contract.
However, rate incentives to recycle and compost already encourage customers toward lower cost
service configurations, and any reduction in revenue stemming from the discount must be made
up for by other ratepayers.)
• "A la carte" service (only being charged when actually setting out a container—particularly for
yard waste, which may be generated sporadically.)
• All recycling should be "free" and/or residents should be paid to recycle. (Recycling is not free.
Recycling and composting services are partially offset by avoided disposal costs and commodity
revenues, but providing sustainable and reliable service to collect recyclables has a cost shared
across the base of customers.)
DRAFT CONTRACT ELEMENTS AND SERVICE ALTERNATIVES:
This section outlines draft elements in the base contract that will become the foundation of the RFP
process. The intial selection of base contract elements relies on familiarity with industry norms. This
process allows time for additional input, including during City Council review of the draft contract, and
also when the City Council provides authorization for soliciting proposals. Input on Service Alternatives
will also be received via the Industry Review process for incorporation into the formal RFP process.
Once the actual RFP process begins, respondents will provide pricing for base services. Service
Alternatives will show how alternatives impact pricing (up or down). For example, a Service Alternative
focused on periodic set outs for bulky items or larger quantities of trash (such as from a "spring
cleaning")will help determine how the option is specified(or limited). Specifications could vary based on
the following options: on demand twice per year, once per year, or only during an official "spring
cleaning" week each year. The resulting pricing variations from proponents will provide the City Council
with solid costs with which to evaluate potential service changes.
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 8
The Draft Contract Updates and Service Alternatives fall into three main categories:
Draft Base Contract Changes: Enhancements that have economic or systemic benefits, and are
common in newer contracts in other Cities. These core items also help set a foundation for
contract performance and service consistency among the various hauling companies.
Draft Service Alternatives: Enhancements that can include a pricing element - so the relative
cost can be considered.This also includes several options suggested by the survey outcomes.
Industry Review Dependent Alternatives: Options and issues we don't currently know enough
about. Some need to be informed by the Industry Review process, and by current procurement
processes and negotiations taking place in various cities. These elements also relate to recycling
market conditions, including potential changes like recyclables revenue sharing and risk sharing.
Draft Base Contract Changes:
Rate Adjustment Timing
The new contract will synchronize rate adjustments to coincide with January Pt of each year, rather than
having adjustments occur in different months,or coinciding with the contract's operations start date.
Start Date for new operations and future contracts
The new start date will be in September. This will allow wholesale changes to container, cart or other
service upgrades to occur during mild weather. This also prevents future service changes from conflicting
with the major holidays at year-end.
Administrative Fee based on gross receipts rather than a fixed amount
The new contract will require monthly reporting of revenues, allowing the percentage-based
Administrative Fee to track the relative size of the utility and rate base. This eliminates windfalls that
accrue with a fixed Administrative Fee that doesn't account for the City's customer base expansion
through growth and infill over time.
Embedded Costs of Commercial Recycling(Equalized service rates for commercial and multifamily
services)
The City's current contract has two separate service thresholds for customers who receive very similar
services (primarily using dumpster and compactor containers). Multifamily customers receive unlimited
recycling service, but pay a higher base garbage fee. For other commercial customers, cart-based (small
scale) recycling services are the only embedded recycling collection service. This means commercial
customers must subscribe to additional services for a fee, or dispose of their recyclables in the garbage.
This new contract improvement allows all these similarly serviced customers to also receive the same
level of embedded recycling services. This should result in an overall savings since bundled service won't
require a subscription, and should encourage more recycling. However, competition among open-market
recycling service providers is discouraged.
Lower Cost for Bulky Item Collection
(No RFP alternative recommended,instead factor in this service into the base rate schedule.)
The current fee structure has rates for bulky item collection, but these rates are likely higher than market,
as demonstrated by how infrequently these services are used by residents. In the new base contract, the
cost for these services will be reduced to a more affordable range ($20 to $30 per item). These rates will
more closely align with the recycling and disposal fees charged by King County at its transfer stations for
these items.
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 9
Elimination of Gate Opening and Lock Fees
The current contract includes itemized fees for unlocking and opening trash and recycling enclosure
gates, and for use of a standard-key lock to help prevent unauthorized use of containers. The fees apply
per gate and/or per lock and are currently set at $11.37 per month. FWRC establishes requirements for
commercial sites to integrate on-site trash enclosures, so eliminating these fees will remove a disincentive
for compliance. These charges will now be incorporated into the base rates for multifamily and
commercial services and will no longer be billed separately.
No Charge Yard Waste Extra-Unit Collection Following Wind or Storm Events (96-gallon
additional per residential customer,over a two week period)
Customers are currently charged $6.02 for each 96-gallon unit of extra food/yard waste. During fall and
winter storm events, residents can accumulate significant amounts of yard waste from blow down or ice
storms. This new provision allows residents to set out an additional 96-gallons of properly prepared yard
debris at no additional cost during the two weeks following a City-declared storm event. The City would
agree to declare no more than three storm events per year. Notice of declaration will be provided in part
through the contractor's text or out-dial messaging system.
Community Events: Access to Temporary Comprehensive Garbage,Recyclables and Compostables
Collection Services
. Currently, those planning or hosting community events may want temporary garbage, recyclables and
compostables collection services. However, collection services are not readily available that include all
three streams. This limits the ability for many community events to provide affordable recyclables
collection or compostables collection services. However, the new contract will set a basic rate to provide
these services in combination, using carts. This will also encourage those hosting community events to
comply with RCW 70.93.093 (requiring recycling collection services to be provided at "official
gatherings" which are defined as: government authorized fairs, concerts, festivals, ceremonial events, and
tournaments).
Improved Strike Language and Performance Fees
The application of liquidated damages due to work stoppage proved difficult to apply during the 2012
labor dispute. To avoid a similar situation, the new contract requires the contractor to keep the City
updated regarding strike contingency and service recovery plans, and to also provide pro-rated credits to
customers for missed services due to a work stoppage.The new contract language also sets daily penalties
due to a work stoppage which escalate over time. The new contract will allow the City to receive better
information from the contractor about the nature of the labor dispute, and require improved tracking to
document which neighborhoods and commercial customers were missed vs.which received services.
Update Approach to extending contract services to the Potential Annexation Area
The new contract will allow improved compliance with RCW 35.13.280 which governs the respective
rights and obligations of hauling companies providing existing services in newly unincorporated areas.
Draft Service Alternatives:
Bulky Item Collection from Residents—"Spring Clean"Scenarios A,B, and C
(RFP Service Alternative input recommended so that cost data can aid the selection of a single
preferred Scenario)
This Service Alternative focuses on periodic set outs for bulky items or larger quantities of trash (such as
from a"spring cleaning"). Specifications will vary based on three scenarios: A. Two collections per year,
B.Only once per year,or C. Only during a specific"spring clean"week each year.
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 10
Senior or Fixed Income Discounts
(Maintain existing discounts, no RFP alternative recommended)
Some Cities have long-standing senior discounts for garbage collection, dating back to the era of fixed-fee
collection (when all customers paid a flat rate regardless of actual garbage service volume). The senior
rate was a reflection that retired "empty nesters" generally produced much less garbage than average
customers and so warranted a price break. With the expansion of variable garbage rates based on
container size, seniors(and really,all customers)can take advantage of lower rates by using recycling and
composting options and then selecting a smaller garbage container at a lower cost. For example, a 20-
gallon/week garbage cart combined with curbside recycling is less than $12 per month. Expanding
discounts shifts the cost of providing this subsidy to other ratepayers, including low-income families,
which raises other service equity issues. With the Utility Tax Rebate already in place, and carry-out
services offered at no charge to disabled customers, the need for setting this type of discount and
tracking/verifying eligibility may not be the highest priority facing the City during this procurement
process,and this topic may not warrant additional consideration.
Litter Control Concepts:
Litter Receptacle Collection Services
(RFP Alternative 1: Exclude servicing litter receptacles, and instead maintain current approach
and lower service level.)
The City has installed a limited number of litter and recycling receptacles which would now be serviced
by the Contractor. In addition, up to thirty garbage-only receptacles will be installed by the Contractor
and serviced at least one per week, and more frequently seasonally. This will improve the level of service
specifically in the downtown core, and reduce the amount of litter that needs to be collected in the ROW
commensurately. This level of service is not a cure-all, since other litter control services will still be
needed in the City.
Provide More Comprehensive Litter Control Services
(RFP Alternative 2: Specify additional litter control services, similar to existing ROW maintenance
contract services levels, in the RFP as a Service Alternative to explore pricing and proponent
alternatives.)
The combination of more comprehensive litter control services could be assessed through a Service
Alternative for litter control service provided at a similar scale as the litter collection element in the
Public Works Department's right-of-way Landscape Maintenance contract. The combination of that
service into this contract may yield savings or other synergies, which would be highlighted in RFP
responses.
Industry Review Dependent Alternatives:
Mandatory Garbage Collection Service
(Recommendation: Factor in input from the Industry Review process to determine if this is a
practical approach for the City to pursue.)
Mandatory sign-up for garbage collection service ("Mandatory" for ease of discussion) would set a
requirement (potentially through a FWRC update) to require residents and (possibly) businesses to sign
up for service. The City would need to determine how to enforce the requirement to sign up (by the
hauler,by Code Compliance, etc.) and how to pay for the cost of enforcement, as well as the overall cost
vs. benefit, since there may be opposition from some residents (as shown by a few comments).
Exemptions could be considered (for example, for businesses or residents that share service, or for fixed
income households).
Other cities with Mandatory service have a clear mechanism for enforcement — since they are the main
billing agency for local utilities. For example, Auburn runs its own water district, so they will shut-off
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 11
households who refuse to sign up for garbage service. Federal Way is not in this position, and a
mechanism to pay for enforcement costs and bad debt from those who refuse to pay would have to be in
place. If these cost more than the potential reduction in service rates, then requiring Mandatory service
sign-up would be a challenge to justify. Some proponents may view Mandatory as a guarantee of a larger
customer base, but if the City has no concrete means of enforcement (like Auburn) there can be a lot of
bad debt to cover,which may push rates higher.
The uncertainty of how enforcement would be paid for, and the lack of tangible benefits (little impact to
littering or trash accumulations that require code enforcement action) mean that exploring mandatory
service may not be the highest priority facing the City during this procurement process, and this topic may
not warrant additional consideration.
Storefront&Recycling Drop-offs
(Potential RFP Alternative: provide a Storefront or similar Recycling Drop-off location-with the
base contract excluding this Service Alternative)
While this option saw the least support on the "New Services" list, it relates to a common Survey
comment: requesting more recycling drop-off options.
The "storefront" concept is used in other cities, with the contractor providing a business office featuring
customer service staff who can resolve billing issues and process services changes. The "storefront"
offers a venue for dropping off some recyclable items that may not be efficient for curbside collection
(batteries, bulbs, etc.) and a place to purchase recycled-content items. This would be paid for by
ratepayers and provide augmented services, not replicating collection services, in this way not necessarily
carving out a service paid for by ratepayers that encourages fewer ratepayers.
A storefront would be staffed so it would prevent common drawbacks of drop-off recycling sites: illegal
dumping and high level of contamination in what is dropped off. The related Service Alternative option
may also allow proponents to propose additional or alternative drop-off recycling services.
Reduced Garbage Collection Frequency("Every-other-week" Garbage Collection)
(Potential RFP Alternative: Determine if savings resulting from this reduction in service level
would potentially offset higher rates that may result from the base contract's service specifications.)
Currently household garbage and food/yard waste are picked up weekly while recycling is collected
every-other-week. In a few cities, food/yard waste (heavy, wet, and compostable items) get picked up
weekly,but recycling and garbage(mainly the leftover dry"rubbish")are picked up on alternating weeks.
The potential for this service model to reduce operating costs(due to 25% fewer trips per customer) could
be attractive if the results of the RFP lead to a large rate increase. However, higher costs are also
possible, for example larger carts for the "rubbish" component, plus additional trucks and/or shorter
routes—since the same volume of wastes are collected over time.
Rethinking Recycling Services and Targeted Recyclable Items
(Potential RFP Alternative: to explore how changes to recycling service and changes to targeted
recyclable materials will impact rates)
With recent changes in recycling markets, proponents will be asked to consider options that reduce
market risk and potentially share revenues from marketing recyclables with customers. Proponents will
also be asked how changes to the list of targeted recyclable materials or recycling services will reduce
costs and benefit ratepayers. The alternative could explore ways to incentivize the hauler to divert more
marketable materials while reducing overall disposal costs. That may result in less garbage disposal and
October 16,2018
City Council—Study Session
Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Procurement—Survey and RFP Update
Page 12
lower rates. Qualitative scoring of the proposals will further consider the scope of a proponent's recycling
proposal.
Comments from proponents provided during
the IndustryReview process will help refine these four
Service Alternatives.
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
At the October 16th Study Session the survey results, base contract upgrades, and potential Service
Alternatives will be reviewed by the City Council. Once related changes are made to the base contract,
City Council will receive a link to the electronic version to allow detailed review of contract elements and
additional feedback. The Land Use and Transportation Committee will consider authorization to solicit
proposals at its November 5th meeting, with City Council authorization slated for its November 20th
meeting.This will complete the initial launch of the RFP process and Industry Review process.
n during Alternatives included as part of the base contract will be considered by proponents durig the
formal Industry Review process, so they may be updated to incorporate suggestions that reduce cost or
encourage competition. The Industry Review process may also provide input that points out the necessity
for more impactful or practical Service Alternatives to include in the RFP process. In addition, the
Industry Review process will provide input to further refine the base contract prior to RFP release in early
January 2019.
Attachment:Solid Waste Services Survey Form
K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2018\10-October 2018\10-16-18 Study Session-SWR Contract Procurement.docx
CITY OF
1.. Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
Garbage, Recycling and Food/Yard Waste Services Survey
Please respond by September 30, 2018
The City is working on a new garbage, recycling and food/yard waste collection contract.
Please tell us your preferences which will help determine new services.
1. Service Priorities: Rank the following from most important (1) to least important (5).
Cost of service
Customer service
Keep same schedule
Reliability of service
_ More recycling services (collect additional items, more frequent service)
Comments:
2. Mandatory Garbage Collection Service: Garbage collection service is currently optional, but
some cities require every household and business to have garbage collection service. The goal is
to reduce illegal use of customer containers and limit storing excess garbage. Increased collection
efficiency may lower rates. Exemptions could be considered. How strongly do you support
mandatory garbage collection service?
0 0 0 0 0
Strongly support Support Neutral Do not support Strongly opposed
Comments:
3. Bundled Food/Yard Waste Service: Food/yard waste collection is currently optional at an
additional fee. Some cities bundle the cost of food/yard waste collection in the garbage fee (similar
to recycling). The goal is that more food scraps, compostable paper, and plant trimmings would be
composted instead of ending up in the landfill. Increased collection efficiency and decreased
disposal cost will lower rates for those currently participating. How strongly do you support
bundled food/yard waste service?
❑
0 0 0 0
Strongly support Support Neutral Do not support Strongly opposed
Comments:
4. Every-other-week Garbage Collection Service: Currently household garbage and food/yard
waste are picked up weekly and recycling is every other week. In a few cities, food/yard waste is
picked up weekly, and recycling and garbage are picked up on alternating weeks. The goal is to
decrease service cost, decrease the number of trucks on the road, and encourage more
composting of food scraps and yard trimmings. The Health Department allows this schedule since
it does not cause increased odor impacts. How strongly do you support "every-other-week"
garbage collection (with weekly food/yard waste service and every-other-week recycling)?
0 0 0 0 0
Strongly support Support Neutral Do not support Strongly opposed
Comments:
5. New Services: Which new services interest you? Please note, there may be costs for added
services. (Check any boxes that interest you.)
❑ Local office/storefront where you can pay your bill, talk face-to-face with customer
service staff, and drop-off items for recycling.
❑ Include bulky item collection costs in basic services for curbside collection of old
mattresses, furniture, appliances, etc.
❑ Increased litter collection along main roads and/or more garbage cans near bus stops.
❑ Curbside collection of additional items for recycling such as: used cooking oil, clothing,
books, electronics, Styrofoam, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, etc.
❑ Increased collection frequency: weekly curbside collection of recyclables.
❑ No changes; service options should be similar to current levels.
❑ Do not add any extra services and amenities that increase overall costs.
Comments:
6. Tell Us What You Think: What other ideas or comments do you want to have considered as part
of the new collection contract?
7. Customer Type:
❑ I directly pay for curbside garbage service
❑ I haul my garbage to the transfer station/dump
❑ I live in an apartment, condo or mobile home park in Federal Way
❑ I manage an apartment, condo or mobile home park in Federal Way
❑ I own/manage a business in Federal Way
❑ Other:
8. Select Your Zip Code:
❑ 98001 0 98003 0 98023 0 Other:
9. Do you want to discuss this survey or your ideas with City staff? Please let us know and we will
contact you. Alternatively, you can contact Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator
at 253-835-2770 or robv(a�cityoffederalway.com.
Name:
Email: Phone:
Thank you for your time and ideas— we value your opinion!
Please return your completed survey by September 30, 2018 to:
City of Federal Way Recycling, 33325 8th Ave S, Federal Way, WA 98003.
You may also complete the survey online at www.cityoffederalway.com/Recycling