Sharon Friedrichsen

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good Morning Felipe,
Rob Hilton [rchilton@hfh-consultants.com]
Wednesday, February 05, 2014 7:58AM
Melchor, Felipe; Cadelago, Joseph
Jason Stilwell; Sharon Friedrichsen
Franchise Exceptions
Franchise exceptions summary_WM.doc
In response to the direction of the Carmel City Council last night, I wanted to provide you with the committee's list of
the exceptions and assessment of the significance of each (attached). We look forward to Waste Management's
response to the City Council's request.
Thank you,
Rob Hilton
Vice President
HF&H Consultants, LLC- Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today
201 North Civic Drive, Suite 230
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 977-6959
Fax: {925) 977-6955
Email: rchilton@hfh-consultants.com
HF&H Consultants is a Green Business
Please consider the environment before printing this email
1
Franchise Agreement Exceptions Identified by Waste Management (cont.)
Description of Franchise Exception Potential WMI
Significance
17 9.2.B.1. Insurance; Coverages and Requirements; Minimum Coverages: Low
./
Replaced "Employee Blanket Fidelity Bond" with "Commercial Crime
Insurance" and replaced "per employee loss" with " per occurrence".
Deleted all references to Professional Liability Insurance
18 9.2.B.6. Insurance; Coverages and Requirements: Deleted certified mail
requirement from all certificates and noticing requirement from Workers'
Low
./
Compensation certificate. Deleted noticing requirement for suspension or
voidance of insurance.
19 9.2.B.9. Insurance; Coverages and Requirements: specified that only Medium
./
general liability and auto liability coverage shall be primary and non-
contributory. Other coverage types unchanged.
20 10.1 Events of Default: Deleted "All provisions of the Agreement are Medi um
./
considered material."
21 lO.l.F. Events of Default; Failure to Perform Direct Services: Excluded Force Medium
./
Majeure events.
22 10.1.1. Events of Default; False, Misleading, or Inaccurate Statements: High
./
Deleted entire item.
23 10.1.K. Events of Default; Suspension or Termination of Service: Deleted High
./
entire item.
24 10.1.L. Events of Default; Criminal Activity: Completely re-wrote this item. High
./
25 10.1.0. Events of Default; Failure to Perform any Obligation: Deleted entire Medium
./
item.
26 10.2 Right to Terminate Upon Event of Default: deletes language that High
./
removes obligation of Agency to notify Contractor and provide cure
opportunity if Contractor has breached in prior 24 month peri od.
27 10.4 Possession of Records upon Termination: Modifies Agency access to
records to include only those reasonably necessary for continued collection
Medium
./
services and excludes access to proprietary computer systems records.
28 lO.S.Performance Standards and Liquidated Damages; Service Performance
Standards; Liquidated Damages for Failure to Meet Standards: All ows
Medium
./
Contractor ability to request a meeting and present evidence (from
Agency's exclusive right) and adds appellate rights of Contractor.
29 10.7 Excuse from Performance: adds definition of Force Majeure and Medium
./
modifies third party labor unrest. Simplifies language excusing performance
for third party labor disruption.
30 10.7 Excuse from Performance: Adds that Contractor shall be excused from
performance for first 7 days of its own labor unrest (from no excuse of
High
./
performance). Adds lock-out as form of labor dispute.
31 11.1 Contractor' s Corporate Status: Adds " Delaware" and replaces "good Low
./
standing" with "authorized to conduct business.
32 12.2 Compliance with Law: Adds that if conflict of agreement and municipal
code occur, agreement shall prevail.
Medium
./
33 12.6 Assignment: Changes language allowing Agency to deny request for Medium
./
assignment to say that agency may not unreasonably withhold consent.
HF&H Consultants, LLC
Franchise Agreement Exceptions Identified by Waste Management (cont.)
34 12.6.C Assignment: Removed obligation to furnish financial statements if
ass ment is to a related
35 12.9 Notice Procedures: requires notice be sent via overnight courier or
certified mail return recei uested USPS .
36 13.5 Severability: Removes "non-material" from definition of provisions
that may be deemed invalid and unenforceable.
37 Exhibit A Definitions "Applicable Law" : Changes def of Applicable Law to
laws in effect as of date of osal submission m Effective Date
38 Exhibit A Definitions "Bulky ltem": Limits tires to two (from no specified
limit)
39 Exhibit A Definitions "Change in Law": Deletes exclusion of payment
obi tions with rd to cha in law.
40 Exhibit A Definitions: "Contractor": Deleted companies, affiliates, and
subsidiaries from definition of Contractor.
41 Exhibit A Definitions: "Recyclable Materials": Adds Agency
acknowledgement that materials may not recyclable due to market
conditions.
42 Exhibit A Definitions: "Recyclable Materials": Modifies definition to exclude
materials containi Excluded Materials.
43 Exhibit A Definitions: "Unacceptable Materials": Created this defined term
as follows:
"Unacceptable Materials" means the following materials: microwave trays,
mirrors, window or auto glass, light bulbs, ceramics, porcelain, plastics
unnumbered, plastic bags, coat hangers, glass cookware/bakeware,
household items such as cooking pots, toasters, etc., and materials
containing chemical or other properties which are deleterious or capable of
causing material damage to any part of Contractor's property, its personnel
or the public, or materially impairing the strength or the durability of the
Contractor's structures ore nt.
44 Exhibit B Direct Services: adds Unacceptable Materials to prohibited
able Materials
45 Exhibit E Rate Adjustment Methodology: Deletes the "good faith effort"
maki s rate a ustments a roval June 1 mandata
46 Exhibit F Performance Standards & Liquidated Damages: Added that notice
of missed collections must be received before noon in order to be
corrected the end of the business
47 Exhibit F Performance Standards & Liquidated Damages: Deleted standard
for Excessive Noise and Discourteous Behavior.
48 Exhibit F Performance Standards & Liquidated Damages: Deleted catch-all
standard that says failure to perform any obligation of the agreement
results in $100/d fine.
HF&H Consultants, LLC
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Medium
Medium
Sharon Friedrichsen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Sharon,
Cadelago, Joseph (jcadelag@wm.com]
Thursday, February 06, 2014 12:10 PM
Sharon Friedrichsen
Melchor, Felipe
WM Summary of Exceptions
MRWMD Evaluation Comm Follow up 121313 v2.docx; WMSummary of problematic
exceptions.xlsx
Follow up
Completed
This is not our official response to the action item on Tuesday. However attached are the WM exception responses we
passed out to the council on Tuesday, as well as the response to Hilton from December to provide our intent and clarity
on those items. We would like to politely request that these be distributed to the council members while we wait for the
official response, or if we can do so directly.
Sincerely,
Joe Cadelago
Government & Community Relations Representative
jcadelag@wm.com
Waste Management Carmel-Marina
11240 Commercial Parkway
Castroville, CA 95012
Tel 831 796 2212
Cell831 331 0764
montereycounty. wm .com
Recycling is a good thing. Please recycle any printed emails.
1
Section 10.1.K: WM is willing to be flexible on this language, provided that we reach an
agreement that performance will be excused to a certain extent in the event of labor
disruptions. We feel there are some inconsistencies in the draft agreement.
Section 10.1.L: WM is concerned that an unlawful act by a non-managerial employee could
trigger this default provision, which we feel is extreme and unfair. For example, if a WM gate
house employee should be convicted of embezzling money, with no involvement of WM or
managerial employees, it would be unjust for WM's agreement with a member city to be
terminated. We feel WM' s proposed language better accomplishes the intent of the member
cities.
Section 10.1.0 : WM is willing to accept the RFP' s draft language.
Section 10.2: Based on the model agreement language, where all provisions of the agreement
are considered material, WM is concerned that two instances of a relatively insignificant non-
performance event could trigger termination. We don' t believe that is the member cities' intent,
nor would it be just. As such, we continue to request that this language be modified.
Section 10.6: WM is willing to accept the RFP's draft language.
Section 10.7: As stated above, WM feels the draft agreement does not consistently address how
and to what extent performance and liquidated damages will be excused in the event of labor
disruptions. We agree with the concept of Section 10.7, but feel that language needs to be
modified.
Section 13.5: WM is willing to accept the RFP's draft language.
Exhibit A: WM is not seeking a blanket exception for disposing of recyclables. We understand
the member cities' desire to divert material to the greatest extent possible, and it is not our
intent to dispose of material simply because it would be less expensive. We would like to add
language which excuses our obligation to recycle if the market for a type of material becomes
unavailable or if recycling a type of material becomes economically non-viable. We could include
a requirement that WM provide notice and support before such changes occur.
Exhibit E: Our concern with the "good faith effort" language is that it gives the cities too much
flexibility in approving rate increases in a timely manner, a problem which has arisen in the past.
If WM submits the required information by the established deadline, there should be no reason
why the cities cannot approve rate adjustments by June 1. However, if we can clarify in the
agreement that WM will receive properly supported rate increases (See comment regarding
Section 8.3), then WM will withdraw its exception to strike "make a good faith effort to" from
Exhibit E.
Exhibit F: This exception is related to a concern described above that WM may be overly
penalized for relatively insignificant non-performance events. If WM and the cities can address
this concern, then WM is willing to withdraw thi s exception.
Again, the WM exceptions were our attempt to be responsive to the RFP and "lay our cards on the
table" with respect to changes we would like to see in the agreement, an approach we feel the cities
should appreciate. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
lli1!2!! of Co!'tras:l 1ummaa2f
2.1 Cities may renew term (up to 5 yrs) without WM consent Renewal terms must be agreed upon by WM l11 any cont ract, bot h parties should have the opportunity to decide
whether the partnership Is working before an extension is Jiven. Reduces
the potential for both parties not to continue in a relationship where only
one side benefits.
7.8 Unlfmit ed audits of WM' s billings and payments of fees. If Limit audits to two (2) durin' term. If audit reveals errors of 5% or All dties are attemptina to cont ain costs and unlimit ed audft s would result
audit reveals e rrors of 1" or more of Gross Revenues, WM more of Gross Revenues, WM pays for audit up to $10,000. in Increased costs. There Is truly no business reason to have an unlimited
l pays for the audit. a udit provision.
8.3 Regarding extraordina ry adjustments, WMhu Instead of showin& a failure to achieve "reasonabte profitability" as a
burden to show financial loss or fa ilure to achieve basis for the adjustment, WM may in.stead show "increased
reasonable profitability. Agency may request any operational costs." Also, replace "sole judgment with reasonable WM is willing to provide the necessary information to show why it needs an
information they determine necessary in their sole judgment" with recard to Agency' s need for information to establish increase in an situation. Reasonable profit ability is t ruty in
judcment. reasonableness or actUr.Jey of WM's increase request. the Eye ofthe beholder .. and creates a situation that is subjective instead
of objective .
10.1 ..AU provisions of the Agreement are considered material." Delete because they are not. We don't want an Immaterial violation
to be considered an event of default . It is a unreasonable to expect or agree that all provisions are material. A
I
minor issue could be ut Uized t o affect the overall contract . How many
contracts exist where aU provisions are metterial?
10.1.F Failure to prov;de services for 2 consecutive calendar days WM excused from performance if failure is due to Force Majeure An attempt to clarify lansuaa:e and make it congruent with other parts of
or more =event of default the contract.
10.1.K If there is termination or suspension of service for more Delete
than 2 calendar days (even due to strike, etc)= event of An attempt to clarify lanauage and make it concruent with ot her parts of
default the contract. It is erroneous to point to this clause as an attempt by WM to
lock-out employees. WM has not experience a work stoppaee in Monterey
and only attempted to clarify language.
10.1.l If WM (or officer, manager, employee) is found guilty of limited to management level employees, and WM may first It is unreasonable to expect an organization to accept a clause that could
criminal activity directly or indirectly related to t his terminate or remove the employee. potential ly place the contract in default if a n entrv level employee commit s
agreement;; event of default a criminal activity. We expect t hat this would seem unfair fo r any party t o a
new contract .
10.1.0 "Contractor fails to perform any obli1ation established Delete. Duplicative of lO.l .H (which gives WM opportunity to cure)
under this Agreement" ==event of default This is duplicative tanguace. Why should WM be penalized if It Is helping
the cities to have a clean contract.
10.2 WMwill not have a right to cure a default If WM Delete This places significant risk on an organization a nd its investments, specially
committed the same or similar breach/default within 24 if a minor infraction could potentialty be utilized to place a contract in
months. default .
10.6 LD section WM added that wContractor s hall retain appellilte rights." Our intent
with this exception Is explain that WM will have the risht to file a
petition for writ of administrative mandate under the California Code
of Civil Procedure 1094. 5, regardless of the "final
11
decision by the WM looks at this added clause iiS a protection of its legal ri1hts In the State
citv. of California.
10.7 L1bor disrupt ions involving WM employees are not Force Added that labor disruption involving WMempfoyees will be Force
Majeure, and WM"shall continue to provide a reasona bly Majeure for the fi rst 7 days.
satisfactory level of performance ..., but the Contractor
shall not be required to adhere strktly to the specific
requirements of the Agreement routes.
Collection t imes or similar matters; provided, however, WMwants to clarify that its intention with this language was not to have
that In no event shall more than seven (7) calendar days lock-out languace but instead wanted time to be able t o provide services in
elapse between pickups ... " a st rike sit uation. As a reminder WM has not had a work stoppage in
Monterey and has verv &ood labor relations.
13.5 If a
14
non-material" provision of t he agreeme nt is deemed Delet ed ' 'non-material", so eve n material provisions deemed invalid
invalid, it won't impact the rem1inlng provisions, will not impact t he aereement. Once again, an attempt by WM t o make tne contract congruent with all
provisions.
A In the definit ion of "Recyclable Materials", we added IJnguace that
..Agency acknowled1es that certain categories of materiJls set fonh This is a chane.e in langua&e that w ill allow both WM and the cit ies to make
above may not be recyclable as a result of market condit ions. a decision on materials that possibly could not have any valuable In terms o
marketability. This helps both entities wit h manae.lng costs.
E (they Agency/City "sholl moke good effort to approve We deleted make a aood faith effort" to make it clear that the cities There is a rat inc makinc mechanism and WM stronger believes that t his
indicated 0 Rates by June 1 of each year ... must approve rates by June 1. process must be objective 1nd not subjective in terms of a uthorization of
by mistake) new rates.
F Catchall LD for "Each failure t o perform Jny obligation of Deleted
the Agreement not specifically stated above"
'--- --
Open ended liquidated damage t hat places undo risk on the hauler.
February 18, 2014
Mr. Jason Stilwell, City Manager
Cannel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Box CC
Cannel-by-the-Sea, CA 9392 I
Re: RFP and Exceptions
Dear Mr. Stilwell,
WASTE MANAGEMENT
t i240 Commercial Park\16Y
Ca.\trovitle. CA 95012
(Rl ll 7%-2256
(831) 633-3523 Fax
On behalf of Cannel Marina Corporation (CMC), please be advised of our decision not to change our proposal as it
pertains to the exceptions submitted by CMC in our response to the most recent RFP.
Cannel Marina Corporation/Waste Management is and will be reasonable as it negotiates all terms and conditions
and we believe that the items that we have raised regarding the RFP document would have resulted in a contract that
is fair and equitable for both parties. It is unfmtunate that we were penalized for reviewing the document and
wanting to be entirely transparent (up front) as we enter into negotiations. Attached with this letter please find the
past responses that were provided to the City' s Consultant addressing specific exceptions and that demonstrate our
flexibility and willingness to negotiate terms.
Carmel Marina Corporation submitted a proposal that is the most price competitive of all bidders and one that will
translate to the most savings, reasonable rates and services for the citizens of Carmel -by-the-Sea. We strongly
believe that our exceptions should not be the sole reason for not considering CMC as the winner.
We spent significant time to develop a program that provided value to the ratepayer and the City, with minimal
impact on rates and with improved services. If the City does not successfully negotiate a contract with their elected
bidder and decides to move in a different direction, we are more than willing to sit down with the City and negotiate
a contract that is beneficial to both parties.
We value our relationship with the City of Carmel and its citizens and it has been a privilege serving the City.
If there are any questions or the need to discuss this item further, J am available at 209-333-5613.
Respectfully,
~ D a

Alex Oseguera
Vice-President and General Manager
Waste Management
Northern CA/Nevada Area
Cc: Daryl A. Betancur, Deputy City Clerk
Rob Hi lton, HF&H Consultants
Section 10.1.K: WM is willing to be flexible on this language, provided that we reach an
agreement that performance will be excused to a certain extent in the event of labor
disruptions. We feel there are some inconsistencies in the draft agreement.
Section 10.l.L: WM is concerned that an unlawful act by a non-managerial employee could
trigger this default provision, which we feel is extreme and unfair. For example, if a WM gate
house employee should be convicted of embezzling money, with no involvement of WM or
managerial employees, it would be unjust for WM's agreement with a member city to be
terminated. We feel WM' s proposed language better accomplishes the intent of the member
cities.
Section 10.1.0: WM is willing to accept the RFP's draft language.
Section 10.2: Based on the model agreement language, where all provisions of the agreement
are considered material, WM is concerned that two instances of a relatively insignificant non-
performance event could trigger termination. We don' t believe that is the member cities' intent,
nor would it be just. As such, we continue to request that this language be modified.
Section 10.6: WM is willing to accept the RFP's draft language.
Section 10.7: As stated above, WM feels the draft agreement does not consistently address how
and to what extent performance and liquidated damages will be excused in the event of labor
disruptions. We agree with the concept of Section 10.7, but feel that language needs to be
modified.
Section 13.5: WM is willing to accept the RFP' s draft language.
Exhibit A: WM is not seeking a blanket exception for disposing of recyclables. We understand
the member cities' desire to divert material to the greatest extent possible, and it is not our
intent t o dispose of material simply because it would be less expensive. We would like to add
language which excuses our obligation to recycle ifthe market for a type of material becomes
unavailable or if recycling a type of material becomes economically non-viable. We could include
a requirement that WM provide notice and support before such changes occur.
Exhibit E: Our concern with the "good faith effort" language is that it gives the cities too much
flexibility in approving rate increases in a timely manner, a problem which has arisen in the past .
If WM submits the required information by the established deadline, there should be no reason
why the cities cannot approve rate adjustments by June 1. However, if we can clarify in the
agreement that WM will receive properly supported rate increases (See comment regarding
Section 8.3), then WM will withdraw its exception to strike "make a good faith effort to" from
Exhibit E.
Exhibit F: This exception is related to a concern described above that WM may be overly
penalized for relatively insignificant non-performance events. If WM and the cities can address
this concern, then WM is willing to withdraw this exception.
Again, the WM exceptions were our attempt to be responsive to the RFP and "lay our cards on the
table" with respect to changes we would like to see in the agreement, an approach we feel the cities
should appreciate. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss.
Sharon Friedrichsen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jason Stilwell
Friday, April 04, 2014 4:17 PM
Sharon Friedrichsen
FW: WM Letter to Carmel
CarmelletterApril4.pdf
From: Cadelago, Joseph [mailto:jcadelag@wm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:22 AM
To: Jason Stilwell
Subject: WM Letter to Carmel
Jason,
Thank you for the opportunity to attend Monday's workshop. As the city reexamines the costs and programs associated
with the new franchise agreement, or the city reaches an impasse with the selected bidder, please know that WM is
willing to negotiate all terms of the agreement particularly the exceptions that are of concern to the city attorney. We
have the best cost, programs and service solutions for the ratepayer and look forward to discussing these with the city
should the opportunity be available. Attached is the company's formal response stating as such.
Have a great weekend Jason,
Sincerely,
Joe Cadelago
Government & Community Relations Representative
jcadelag@wm.com
Waste Management Carmel-Marina
11240 Commercial Parkway
Castroville, CA 95012
Tel 831 796 2212
Cell 831 331 0764
montereycounty. wm. com
Recycling is a good thing. Please recycle any printed emails.
1
April4, 2014
Mr. Jason Stilwell, City Manager
Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Box CC
Cam1el-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Re: Franchise Negotiations
Dear Mr. Stilwell,
WASTE MANAGEMENT
I 1240 Commercial Parkway
Castroville, CA 95012
(831) 796-2256
(831) 633 3523 Fax
On behalf of Carmel Marina Corporation (CMC), thank you for the opportunity to again express our willingness to
negotiate a franchise agreement with the city of Carmel by-the-Sea.
Carmel Marina Corporation submitted a proposal that is the most price competitive and one that will translate to the
most savings, reasonable rates and services for the citizens of Cannel-by-the-Sea. Our local team spent significant
time to develop a program that provides value to the ratepayer and the City, with minimal impact on rates and with
improved services.
As mentioned in our Feb 18 letter, Carmel Marina Corporation/Waste Management is and will be reasonable as it
negotiates all terms and conditions, including the exceptions. We believe that the items that we have raised
regarding the RFP docume11t will result in a contract that is fair and equitable for both parties, and it was our
intention after reviewing the document to be entirely transparent (up front) as we enter into negotiations.
\Vc strongly believe that our exceptions should not be the sole reason for not negotiating with WM. We are willing
to provide clarity for each exception, and work with the city to discuss the exceptions that are of most concem to the
city attomey.
If the City does not successfully negotiate a contract with their elected bidder and decides to move in a different
direction, we are more than willing to sit down with the City and negotiate a contract that is beneficial to both
parties.
If there are any questions or would like to discuss this item further, J am available <Jt 831-796-2296.
Felipe M
District Manager
Waste Management
Carmel-Marina Corporation
Sharon Friedrichsen
From:
Sent:
Emily Hanson [EHanson@greenwaste.com]
Monday, April 07, 2014 10:50 AM
To: Jason Stilwell; Sharon Friedrichsen
Cc:
Subject:
Frank Weigel; Jimmy Moresco; Tracy Adams; Rob Hilton; Yvette Oblander
Re: GWR- Carmel Meeting
Importance: High
Jason,
Yes, it was more than unfortunate the meeting did not go well; however, on a positive note, we were able to glean an
incredible amount of information that puts us (Carmel & GWR) in a good position. We have options available to significantly
reduce our revenue requirements without a reduction in current services to residents and businesses We are also looking at
the risk-balancing and we have options to reduce costs to the ratepayers by shifting some risk back to GWR. We will work with
Sharon and Rob to refine the menu of options- this is planned for Wednesday morning. Once we have done this, we need to
get this information to your Council ASAP- how do you recommend we do this?
Also, for clarification, the purpose of extending the invitation to Mayor Burnett and Councilmember Talmage was so they
could understand how the numbers are determined. The Council has been presented with cost information that has been
summarized and it seemed they had some pretty detailed questions. We defer to you on how to (or whether to) engage them
and make ourselves available to answer those questions.
We are confident we are back on track -we just need to solidify our assumptions and get that information turned around as
quickly as possible.
Thank you,
Emily
From: Jason Stilwell <jstilwell@ci.carmel.ca.us>
Date: Monday, April 7, 2014 at 8:57AM
To: Emily Hanson <ehanson@greenwaste.com>, Sharon Friedrichsen <sfriedrichsen@d.carmel.ca.us>
Cc: Frank Weigel <fweigel@greenwaste.com>, Jimmy Moresco <jmoresco@greenwaste.com>, Tracy Adams
<tadams@greenwaste.com>, Rob Hilton <rchilton@hfh-consuftants.com>, Yvette Oblander
<YOblander@ci.carmel.ca.us>
Subject: RE: GWR - Carmel Meeting
You all need the week to sort out what happened fast week. We aren't in a good spot. The workshop was to solicit
public input to refine negotiation strategy not to negotiate terms with the city council.
I have copied Yvette in my office to assist in scheduling a future meeting but I think Sharon, Rob, and GWR need to
figure out how to get the framework for negotiations back. My schedule is not very flexible this week. I think it would
be a mistake to involve a subset of the elected officials in the negotiations; that is what happened last week which is
why Waste Management is back in the picture. Jason
From: Emily Hanson [mailto:EHanson@greenwaste.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 1:17PM
To: Sharon Friedrichsen; Jason Stilwell
Cc: Frank Weigel; Jimmy Moresco; Tracy Adams; Rob Hilton
Subject: GWR - carmel Meeting
Importance: High
1
Sharon Friedrichsen
From: Jason Stilwell
Sent: Wednesday, April16, 2014 3:42PM
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Rob Hilton; Sharon Friedrichsen; klglegal@hotmail.com
FW: Request and Letter from WM
CarmelletterApril4.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
------------------------------- ------ ------------
From: Cadelago, Joseph [mailto:jcadelaq@wm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April16, 2014 2:33PM
To: Jason@BurnettforCarmel.com; Victoria Beach; Carrie Theis; kktalm@aol.com; sqdallas@yahoo.com
Cc: Jason Stilwell; Melchor, Felipe
Subject: Request and Letter from WM
Councilmembers, and Councilmember-Eiect Steve Dallas,
Following the March 31 Council workshop, Waste Management Carmel Marina Corp. sent a response letter to the city
on April 4 (attached). Please know that WM is willing to negotiate all terms of the agreement particularly the few
exceptions that are of concern to the city attorney. We have the best cost, programs and service solutions for the
ratepayer and look forward to discussing these with the city should the opportunity be available.
We would like to respectfully request that council re-engage Waste Management in contract negotiations should the
city reach an impasse or find negotiations unsatisfactory with the selected bidder, and have this agendized for the May 6
council meeting.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Joe Cadelago
Government & Community Relations Representative
jcadelag@wm. com
Waste Management Carmel-Marina
11240 Commercial Parkway
Castroville, CA 9 5012
Tel 831 796 2212
Cell 831 331 0764
montereycounty. wm .com
Recycling is a good thing. Please recycle any printed emails.
1
April4, 2014
Mr. Jason Stilwell, City Manager
Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Box CC
Cam1el-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Re: Franchise Negotiations
Dear Mr. Stilwell,
WASTE MANAGEMENT
I 1240 Commercial Parkway
Castroville, CA 95012
(831) 796-2256
(831) 633 3523 Fax
On behalf of Carmel Marina Corporation (CMC), thank you for the opportunity to again express our willingness to
negotiate a franchise agreement with the city of Carmel by-the-Sea.
Carmel Marina Corporation submitted a proposal that is the most price competitive and one that will translate to the
most savings, reasonable rates and services for the citizens of Cannel-by-the-Sea. Our local team spent significant
time to develop a program that provides value to the ratepayer and the City, with minimal impact on rates and with
improved services.
As mentioned in our Feb 18 letter, Carmel Marina Corporation/Waste Management is and will be reasonable as it
negotiates all terms and conditions, including the exceptions. We believe that the items that we have raised
regarding the RFP docume11t will result in a contract that is fair and equitable for both parties, and it was our
intention after reviewing the document to be entirely transparent (up front) as we enter into negotiations.
\Vc strongly believe that our exceptions should not be the sole reason for not negotiating with WM. We are willing
to provide clarity for each exception, and work with the city to discuss the exceptions that are of most concem to the
city attomey.
If the City does not successfully negotiate a contract with their elected bidder and decides to move in a different
direction, we are more than willing to sit down with the City and negotiate a contract that is beneficial to both
parties.
If there are any questions or would like to discuss this item further, J am available <Jt 831-796-2296.
Felipe M
District Manager
Waste Management
Carmel-Marina Corporation