Loading...
2014, 02-24 Special Joint BOCC MeetingMINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council Monday, February 24, 2014 10:00 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Spokane Valley Staff: Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Morgan Koudelka, St. Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Spokane County. Al French, Chair Todd Mielke, Vice -Chair Shelly O'Quinn, Commissioner Spokane County Staff Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Jim Emacio, DPA, Prosecutor's Office Bill Wedlake, Solid Waste Coordinator Bruce Rawls, Spokane County Div. of Utilities Kevin Cooke, Utilities Director John Dickson, Chief Operations Officer Bob Wrigley, Chief Financial Officer Others in Attendance: Steve Wulf, Sunshine Disposal Recycling Tami Yager, Waste Management Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and welcomed the County Commissioners to the meeting. After self - introductions, Mayor Grafos turned the meeting over to Commissioner Chair French. Chair French also opened the meeting for the Board of County Commissioners, called to order at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning, said the full board is convened with all present, as well as senior staff members and legal counsel. Mayor Grafos acknowledged that since Council just received a copy of the draft interlocal agreement this morning, there was been little time for reviewing the document. Chair French explained that the City of Spokane has finalized their agreement from a legislative standpoint, in terms of selling the transfer stations to the County and turning over the regional operation to the County, and that they (the County) have now issued an RFP (Request for Funding Proposal) to find an operator for the transfer stations. He said they will be holding the Regional Solid Waste Meeting this Thursday night and have invited all jurisdictions so everyone will get a status update, and to give an opportunity for the County to answer any questions about the status of this project, as well as to see how many jurisdictions want to join the regional system or plan on going on their own. Mr. French said the City of Spokane is the only city firmly committed to the regional system. Mr. French explained that at this Friday's meeting, they will start the education process about costs, said work continues on refining the cost; that this is a dynamic process, there is nothing written in stone, but they are trying to pursue a Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 direction that is in the best interests of all rate payers. Mr. French said the interlocal is a starting point; he said various jurisdictions will have pros and/or cons to address from their standpoint; that it is always better to edit than create and he stressed this is a basic document. Chair French said that Spokane Valley is the second largest generator of waste from a municipal system, and they felt today's meeting would be appropriate, adding that of course Spokane Valley is invited to come and participate at the Thursday night meeting as well. Mr. French asked if there were any issues Council might have to help find a path forward. Commissioner Mielke said that this process has taken longer than anticipated as they had hoped to be where we are now, about six or eight months ago; he said that Thursday's meeting is a little about going into some details about how the system operates; and that today the Commissioners are interested to understand Spokane Valley's goals and philosophy concerning a solid waste system; that the Commissioners hope to ascertain what it is that Spokane Valley feels is most important. Commissioner Mielke said that first they went in with broad ideas to determine how to create the least amount of disruption for citizens and second is the notion of trying to handle solid waste in the lowest cost - responsible way, and said he realizes all jurisdictions have that as a common goal; he said they are trying to guarantee the lowest cost so they put this out for bid; and to secure the transfer stations they have to have a place to take the solid waste; he feels they have a unique charge and according to State statute, they are to write a solid waste plan; beyond that, he said they want to take the steps to make sure they have the lowest cost option to handle solid waste regionally; he said once they completed the purchase of the transfer stations, adding that they got them at a good cost, first would be to put it out to bid to operate those; and said that typically they would take the lowest bid, and said it will take some time before they have definitive numbers. Concerning building the transfer stations, he said they were looking at between $20 and $22 million to build two from scratch, and that a third transfer station would have been an additional cost; he mentioned the requirement to through the process to site a transfer station as it is an essential public facility; and said that is a long tedious process subject to a lot of public input as well as challenge and appeal at just about every step. He said they will have the transfer stations up and running by November of this year, and that it could easily be two to three years before they complete the essential public facility siting process; that the set price of $9.9 million would be amortized over seven years, and from a cost perspective, said they feel the purchase is about half of what it would cost to construct a new facility; and said there is certainty of knowing where they'll be and that they don't have to go through a separate siting facility process to get there. Chair French explained that they hired a consultant who said they would need three transfer stations to meet all the County's needs, and the cost of building the West Plains stations would be needed; he said they were able to negotiate with the City of Spokane to continue to use the Waste -to- Energy Plant site as a transfer station for the West Plains, so that eliminated the need to build that third transfer station, which he said has a significant cost impact.. Commissioner Mielke again stated that for the operational aspects, the goal is how to have a low cost system that responsibly takes care of solid waste in this area, and one which meets the legal obligations they have under State statute; said they are required to have the planning element, as well as public education element, and that does not mean a one -time publication, but rather an ongoing process; he said they also have to deal with household hazardous waste, recycling, and green waste, and said it costs a lot of money to deal with green waste; he said no jurisdiction can escape the notion that they have legacy landfills around the region that the citizens of this region contributed to; and that at some point it would need ongoing oversight to make sure those closures meet the statutes; again he said the goal is the lowest possible cost for the operation of the transfer stations and movement of solid waste to the disposal site from the transfer stations, which he said is out for bid and that bids are due March 31; he said he thinks this approach will get the lowest possible cost. Also, Mr. Mielke said, there is a seven -year agreement with the first three years moving solid waste to the Waste -to- Energy Plant; he said the City of Spokane worked very hard to project the costs and keep them set; and said the issue of the first three years probably gives us a guaranteed flow for those three years; said they have an Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 "out" clause starting after the third year, where a different disposal method can be chosen in order to have the ability to compare costs, whether by rail or truck, he said that ability is built into the contract and that guarantees the options for flexibility. The report from HDR Engineering, Inc., Chair French said, identified long haul rail as the lowest cost option except for dealing with the West Plains; he said this allows an opportunity to come back and challenge the numbers and be able to bid that out, but to do that, he said we have to quantify the amount of flow and therefore need to know whether or not Spokane Valley will be part of the system; and said he feels together this system will be of higher appeal and that they are incrementally advancing some of the recommendations from that HDR report. Commissioner O'Quinn said they did a great job of laying out the framework, and that the Board would like to hear Spokane Valley's concerns, whether moving regionally or in a different direction; and she asked, what hasn't the Board answered for Council. Mayor Grafos said his philosophy is that any long term agreement entered into should be competitively bid and result in the lowest cost; that Spokane Valley should retain a measure of control over future rates and policy for their citizens; he said they just received the interlocal today and he asked where do the costs come in; said he realized we don't know the costs until the bids come in but at that point, he would like to examine the cost then decide if they want to be part of it; while at the same time he said Spokane Valley does not want to disrupt the system. Mr. Rawls said that after the bids come in March 31, that Kevin Cooke and Bill Wedlake would do a rate study for all the costs, including the cost to close the landfill, recycling programs, planning, etc., and that they should be able to determine the rates in June or July. Commissioner O'Quinn said they anticipate keeping the rates the same as they are currently. Mr. Wedlake said the costs depend on volume and the number of jurisdictions that join the system, adding that economies of scale are very important as they are committed to a cost of service approach to the rate, and will examine all the cost elements and total volumes. Concerning the draft interlocal agreement, Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned Section 2 Duration/Termination, wherein it is stated that the parties may only terminate by mutual written agreement; he said he feels this should be re- written so that either party could escape with a year's written notice. Deputy Mayor Woodard also stated that he wanted to clear up a misunderstanding; that he met with Commissioner O'Quinn about two weeks ago and he mentioned this Council's upcoming February 18 workshop packet, and that although he hadn't seen it yet, assumed there might be something in those packet materials about solid waste; but that in fact, there was no solid waste discussion at the workshop meeting nor materials in that packet; and said that Council has not discussed the topic of solid waste since Council knew it was the focus of the upcoming February 27 meeting, and that it would come up again at the Council of Governance meeting the following day and he stressed that no decisions have been made; he also noted that the HDR report did not take into consideration all the options and therefore, Council asked staff to come up with additional information, but hasn't had a report yet; he said he is here to gather information and that Council will make decisions that are first in the best interests of Spokane Valley citizens; and second in the best interests of the County. Commissioner O'Quinn asked when that additional information might be available, and City Manager Jackson said we do not have a definite time line. In response to a remark from Deputy Mayor Woodard concerning curb pickup, Commissioner Mielke said the question of where does the solid waste go once picked up, will have to be determined by each jurisdiction as they decide what is best for their individual constituents; he said curb -side pickup won't change. Concerning involvement in rate setting, Commissioner Mielke mentioned the previous Wastewater Agreement as a good example; said that agreement recognizes we have capital assets that have to be amortized over the long term; said the idea of having a one -year termination clause is very Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 difficult for any party as the party requesting termination is usually responsible for the unmet capital costs; he said Spokane Valley played a critical role in that wastewater agreement rate setting; said they identified criteria by which to set rates; prioritized obligations to be met, and that we have not ever deterred from those recommendations — one of which was to protect our general funds as you don't want to jeopardize or tap them for unmet obligations. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he recognizes the curb - pickup is a different topic, but said citizens don't recognize that and said it is his wish that governments would take that out of the newspapers as it is a scare tactic; concerning wastewater, he said that is an entirely different agreement; and he explained that he does not intend to have a one -year escape clause from the start of the contract, but a minimum one year's notice, and suggested perhaps some minimum number of years be determined. Chair French said perhaps the terms of the agreement could be shorter, with every fifth year having the ability to re- assess. Concerning policy setting, Chair French said when this conversation was started in January or February 2011, the Board came to all jurisdictions to discuss a regional system and wanted to create a governance model; said they spent over a year putting that together and once it was finished, Spokane Valley said it gave too much control to other jurisdictions and that Spokane Valley would rather see control given to a body everyone elected, namely, the Board of County Commissioners; he said a lot of time was spent to see if there could be a different way to govern this regional asset, and since the Board is the body everyone votes for, that is how it ended up in the current situation; adding that they could not find a different governance model that everyone would accept. Commissioner Mielke added that small jurisdictions felt they were being railroaded by the larger jurisdictions, and the larger jurisdictions said several smaller jurisdictions could together have the ability to rule the majority. In terms of being railroaded, Chair French said that long haul by rail would be the cheapest alternative for us; he said the Waste -to- Energy Plant has done a great job in reducing rates; they were projecting a $143 cost per ton this year when we met, and they are looking at other options; said they have forced the City to look how they manage the system; said they've done a good job but overall, we don't know if all the rate payers are getting the best possible price until they go out for bid. Mayor Grafos said he wants to know that information before signing the agreement; he mentioned page 7 of the agreement concerning the Relationship of the Parties, and said we are giving up a lot of control; that according to this section: "The City is interested only in the results to be achieved and the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which County obligations are performed within the discretion of the County." Therefore, Mayor Grafos said, if in three years we look at the rates and come to the County to bid something out like long haul, since the County is in complete control, they say they'd like to stay the same. Chair French said he is willing to look at that section; and have it state they will be looking at long haul as an option; that if Spokane Valley wants to join within a twelve -month period, the County must go out for bid on a long -haul control; he said Spokane Valley staff can even be part of that; he said the change could be put in brackets, or even just included in the contract; and that he has no objection to include that in the contract, and that it was a great suggestion. Commissioner Mielke reminded everyone that this is an initial draft; that we were losing time and needed to get a dialogue going; and he asked if there are parts of the interlocal not yet addressed. Commissioner Mielke said it took more time in the wastewater agreement to identify by priority, the objectives to be met but that hasn't been done in this agreement; for example, that the rate will be obligated to do specific things, and said he feels that could be developed in this agreement; he said wastewater has an oversight committee to make recommendations on operation and rate setting and has the ability to make adjustments in the operational aspect; said these are things we are hoping to have in working with this language. Concerning rates, Commissioner Mielke said he recognizes the Waste -to- Energy Plant is an aging facility; that the City of Spokane has worked hard on the numbers and that the agreement with the City of Spokane states their rate to the County is a guaranteed set rate with a CPI (Consumer Price Index) inflator. Mayor Grafos asked if the cost of the service to the citizens reflects the cost of retrofitting that facility; and Commissioner Mielke said it does not; that it is a cost per tonnage, is a fixed rate with an annual CPI inflator. Mayor Grafos said he would Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 be more comfortable if it went out to bid for long haul to see what the rate would be for all those services versus using the Waste -to- Energy Plant for three years; and let Spokane Valley make the decision. Commissioner Mielke said they have those numbers; but if you don't look at capital facilities, there is a rate differential for long -haul or the Waste -to- Energy Plant; said if you add capital costs of transfer stations it tilts it upside down for the first three years; said the idea is, even if long -haul were used, we would still have to have transfer stations that people can take their solid waste to; that what you do with the solid waste after the transfer station, whether long -haul or the Waste -to- Energy Plant, that's where there's flexibility; and said they have been pushing for a long -haul plan for years. Chair French said he had conversations with Burlington Northern Railroad representatives about what would happen if we made significant changes in the volume going through the existing facilities, and they told him they would be choked out of business; he said the municipal solid waste is the lowest price commodity they (the railroad) moves; and with the volumes currently set, they end up with municipal solid waste containers sitting on the ground for two to three weeks as they can't get the trains to move them out; he said the County's efforts to create another rail facility on the West Plains, they feel, would be a positive outcome to Burlington; that they'd increase their profitability and that low cost solid waste could be diverted to the West Plains; said he is talking with Burlington to put that plan in, but it won't happen overnight, but they need to guarantee Burlington and the transfer contractor, the flow and that the facility can be built; said we need the lowest price possible which will help drive more economic vitality through the West Plains and the Valley; he said Burlington said their Valley facility would be enhanced by being able to move solid waste out of the valley. Councilmember Pace said it sounds as if Spokane Valley needs to sign [the interlocal] before knowing the costs. Commissioner Mielke explained that unfortunately, we don't know all the costs, and by the time we wait for the RFP results and negotiate contracts, we won't have a specific number and that puts us in a difficult position; he said they are trying to guarantee a process that will end up with the lowest possible number. Councilmember Pace said he would like to see the process and the end result before signing the interlocal. Commissioner Mielke said we have the state deadline to be up and running by November as the County doesn't want to bear any potential for fines; that at some point we must define who is part of the plan so the rest can define who is in and work to meet the deadlines; he said every expert that came before the Board in the last two years said if you use the same model that has been in place for twenty years, they see no reason to see much deviation at all from current rates; but only when you start changing the look and feel of the system, it is harder to set those costs. Chair French said the drive is to get the lowest and best price; said if Spokane Valley moves out on its own, they will do that without knowing if those are the lowest and best as Spokane Valley won't have the County's numbers, and that either way we will be making a decision based on faith, which he said is a difficult situation. Councilmember Pace said the consumers also need to have confidence they are not getting "screwed." Commissioner Mielke said they will wait for the bids to come back; and if the tonnage deviates that price doesn't hold; and Councilmember Pace again said it seems someone will have to bend so Spokane Valley is not forced to sign an agreement without all the figures. Councilmember Hafner said Spokane Valley Council is the policy making group for this Valley and has to rely on facts supplied by the City Manager; and said Council has to have trust that the figures will be what they think they will be; that regarding the letter Council responded to last September, said he feels some of the concerns are not yet addressed; he also noted that this interlocal was just received today; said it is difficult to make a decision without all the facts; he said Spokane Valley plays an important role and he mentioned waiting until the figures come in after the March bid deadline; and asked about signing now and then modifying after the bids come in; he said we need some agreeable specifics, but we're not there yet. Chair French said the intent of today's meeting is not to solicit a decision as we are just starting the conversation; he said they know every interlocal agreement has to start with a draft and they expect Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 changes; but that they don't know Spokane Valley's needs; he said the Board needs to know Spokane Valley's "hot buttons" so they can be addressed and this can more forward; he said a lot of things will move forward without all the numbers, but we will have the parameters to minimize risk and make good decisions. Commissioner Mielke said there are three pieces moving at the same time: the need to develop the language for the interlocal; said they have the RFP to better define operations, and once the Board has those costs and see what the whole costs structure looks like, then they do the rate study; to meet this timeline they all have to be moving at the same time, and if any of those are put on the shelf, he said the Board won't meet the timeline; he said we do not have the luxury to wait sixty days; and at some point we have to take what we have and finish it. Commissioner Mielke said the current solid waste agreement ends this November and under state law, they must have a solid waste agreement in place, and have a plan and a program with no lapse. Mayor Grafos said he feels the County has made great strides with the City of Spokane agreement on the Waste -to- Energy Plant; said he is not in favor of delaying this; but said the point at issue at the old meeting was the City of Spokane being an independent vendor, and said we are still at that same point; he suggested the Board put together the numbers they have and if Spokane Valley joins the system, then change the numbers. Commissioner Mielke said they will have the costs regarding the operation of the transfer stations and the movement of those goods once the RFP is committed; but said they need input from potential partners; he said there were a couple ideas mentioned today, and perhaps they could compare the Wastewater agreement and incorporate similar language into this interlocal. Deputy Mayor Woodard also commented that to clarify, he said that we did not say we are in a contract with HDR to get more information; but rather we use the same information the County has to study things; and said he wants to make sure we are not being misquoted. Commissioner Mielke said he was under the impression Spokane Valley was seeking additional information, but wasn't sure of the timeline or the source. Chair French said an issue critical to elected officials is ensuring they have the ability to influence decisions that impact constituents, and said without that control, are uncomfortable with decisions made by other parties; so the issue of self - determination is a challenge; and compared that to the example of a regional road concept and when the snow fall hits, everyone wants their roads plowed first; and said that kind of a situation is always a challenge; the but the goal of regional programs is to eliminate regional costs. Referencing a distributed pie chart, Mr. Kevin Cooke explained that this slide is a preview of Thursday night's presentation and that the slide illustrates the relative amounts associated with a gate fee; and he went over the various colored aspects of the chart; and he mentioned that the County and the City of Spokane's agreement sets a monthly payment, which is the same payment amount for eighty -four months; and said that about 130,000 tons works out to about $11.00 per ton; he said the transfer station charges a fixed rate and that they look at things at a per -ton cost. Mr. Cooke said that there will be a ten -year contract with provisions to extend; and said they are still working on some of the components; but said the more tonnage they have, the more they keep the system together for better tonnage. There was brief discussion comparing our rates with Whitman County, with Chair French stating that one of the reasons they want to bid the long haul for disposal is to make sure they get the lowest rate. Councilmember Hafner said he realizes time is short and that is a concern; said Council wants to look at all the facts, but the invisible figures at this time are figures from the City of Spokane since they already negotiated many things with the County. Commissioner Mielke said their discussions with the City of Spokane focused on the transfer stations; that the City started with a much higher price for the transfer stations, so they moved to a seven year commitment and reduced the price of the transfer stations, and agreed it took a long time to negotiate 60 -70% of the contract with the City of Spokane; but said he feels that has been resolved; adding that the City of Spokane doesn't have any more leverage than anyone else in the remaining of the categories on the chart. Mr. Cooke estimated that the volume used by City of Spokane Valley residents is about 50,000 tons a year. In response to a question about timelines, Mr. Jackson said he is not looking at Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 a definite timeline; that we try to look at all options; and that the County's timeline will drive when Spokane Valley's decision must be made. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that tonnage is being reduced for everyone as recycling increases; and he mentioned the concept of paying for the transfer stations a second time. Chair French said that in the original interlocal, the elected officials designated that the Waste -to- Energy Plant would be the property of the City of Spokane when the agreement ended, as well as the two transfer stations; and he agreed we are paying for them twice; but we are also paying not to have to build a duplicate transfer station. Commissioner Mielke explained that in the past there were a couple landfills declared superfund sites which meant everyone was facing huge costs, in addition to the problem that the landfills were at capacity; and he said that's what drove the Waste -to- Energy Plant; that it was expensive but not as expensive as cleanup costs that come with the challenge of cleaning up a landfill. There was some discussion about past plans or conversations concerning transferring the transfer station to the City of Spokane Valley and of the cost associated the transfer, along with multiple years of hauling and tonnage rates. Chair French expressed appreciation for Council meeting today and asked if there were any suggested directions. Councilmember Hafner suggested continuing the move forward to Thursday night and said he is hopeful Spokane Valley is still in consideration. Chair French replied that the purpose of Thursday night is to educate everyone; that they are not expecting any kind of a vote; but this is just part of the process to let the community know the status, and to have an opportunity to have all jurisdictions hear the same information at the same time. Councilmember Pace asked about resolving the issue of signing an agreement without figures. Mayor Grafos replied that it depends on the agreement process and on Mr. Jackson's study, and that we would likely have an answer within the next thirty to sixty days. Commissioner Mielke said that this Thursday night's meeting is an opportunity to update everyone, and to get input, feedback and discussion on the draft agreement. Commissioner O'Quinn said she wanted to make sure Spokane Valley has an opportunity to share concerns, to have a "one -on -one" and that she realizes each jurisdiction has their own concerns and questions; that Thursday night is an opportunity to come together and focus on the big picture; said she realizes Spokane Valley represents 91,000 citizens, but said so does the Board and that their intent is not to "screw the Valley" but rather to look out for all citizens, adding that the Board wants an agreement beneficial to everyone, which she feels is a regional solution. Deputy Mayor Woodard stated that in the meantime prior to Thursday's meeting, Council has an opportunity to review the document and direct any questions to Mr. Jackson. Chair French replied that he is anxious to hear solutions and that this is not a win or lose kind of situation, as they all share constituents. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. Commission Chair French also closed the Board of County Commissioners meeting at 11:36 a.m. ATT ristine Bainbridg , City Clerk Dea i'ra'os, Maydi Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 03 -11 -2014 UTILITIES DIVISION KEVIN R. COOKE, P.E., DIRECTOR A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS February 21, 2014 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 -6124 "RECEIVED FEB 2 4 2014 City of Spokane Valley Subject: Interlocal Agreement for Participation in the Regional Solid Waste System Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members, As indicated in the previous letter from the Board dated January 28, 2014, the County is diligently working on developing a new Regional Solid Waste System for Spokane County. Our focus is on providing all County citizens with cost - effective, long -term solutions in a seamless fashion. The new system will continue to provide our citizens with excellent customer service. We are enclosing an Interlocal Agreement for your consideration. The Interlocal Agreement authorizes your city to join the Regional Solid Waste System operated by the County and also authorizes the County to include your city in the Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The 1988 Interlocal Agreement between Spokane County and the City of Spokane that created the current Regional Solid Waste System will expire on November 16, 2014. Spokane County and the City of Spokane have recently executed a new Interlocal Agreement that will go into effect on November 17, 2014. Under this Interlocal Agreement, the County will assume ownership of the Transfer Stations on November 17, 2014 and will manage the regional system. The County is committed to keeping the transfer station gate fees as low as possible over the long term. A major factor in determining the gate fees will be the cost of transfer station operations. Proposals from companies interested in operating the County's transfer stations are due on March 31St. We anticipate awarding the Transfer Stations Operations Contract in July. There will be many benefits resulting from your participation in the new system, including the following: 1. There will be a seamless transition of services from the current system to the new system. 2. Your citizens will enjoy continued use of the recycling centers and household hazardous waste centers at the transfer stations free of charge. 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99260 -0430 PHONE: (509) 477 -3604 • FAX: (509) 477 -4715 • TDD: (509) 477 -7133 3. There will be no surcharge added for solid waste and yard waste "self- hauled" to the transfer stations by your citizens. 4. It will not be necessary for your city to prepare a separate Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 5. You will not need additional staff for solid waste management. We encourage all of the jurisdictions to join the new system now, as we move forward with planning and contracting efforts. If a jurisdiction joins the regional system at a later date, it would be subject to a correcting payment by the jurisdiction to avoid a disproportional distribution of the transfer station costs to the participants. In closing, the County's new system will be the most cost - effective option for the region, and will provide the flexibility to pursue a wider range of competitive options in the future. By keeping the waste stream from all jurisdictions together for solid waste transfer and disposal, we can drive the costs lower for the benefit of all of our citizens. We look forward to meeting with you at Centerplace on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the County's new Regional Solid Waste Management System with you and answer your questions. Prior to that meeting, please feel free to contact me at 477 -7286 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Kevin R. Coke, P.E. Utilities Director Enclosure: (1) cc: Board of County Commissioners Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer John Dickson, Chief Operations Officer Bob Wrigley, Chief Financial Officer Bill Wedlake, Solid Waste Coordinator Jim Wavada, Department of Ecology INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND FOR SOLID WASTE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the , a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at - , , Washington 99 , hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES." RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System ( "System ") was created in 1988 by interlocal agreement between the City of Spokane and Spokane County entitled "AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON SPOKANE REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ". There are 14 member jurisdictions which represent all of incorporated and unincorporated Spokane County. Nearly all interlocal agreements and contacts related to the System expire November 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, the current System is administered as a department of the City of Spokane. The System's facilities consist of four primary facilities: a waste -to- energy ( "WTE ") facility, a transfer station in Spokane Valley ( "Valley Transfer Station "), a transfer station in unincorporated north Spokane County ( "North County Transfer Station ")(jointly referred to as the "Transfer Stations ") and the North side Landfill. All System facilities are currently operated and owned by the City of Spokane; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has entered into an interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane entitled "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND SPOKANE COUNTY REGARDING TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE" ( "City /County Interlocal Agreement "). The purpose of the City /County Interlocal Agreement is, among other matters, to (i) formally terminate the System 1988 interlocal agreement as of November 16, 2014, (ii) provide for the transfer of ownership on November 17, 2014 of the Valley Transfer Station and North County Transfer Station to the COUNTY, and (iii) establish the terms and conditions for the delivery and disposal of all solid waste collected by the COUNTY at the Transfer Stations to the City of Spokane's WTE facility for disposal for a term of seven (7) years ( "County Regional Solid Waste System "). Provided, the COUNTY reserved the right to terminate the City /County Interlocal Agreement after an initial three (3) year time frame upon one' years written notice to the City of Spokane in which instance, the solid waste collected at the Transfer Stations would be truck hauled to regional landfills for disposal, truck hauled to intermodal facilities combined with rail haul to regional landfills or some other disposal option; and Page 1 of 12 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.080(1), each county within the . state, in cooperation with the various cities located within such county, shall prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan. The purpose is to plan for solid waste and materials reduction, collection, and handling and management services and programs throughout the state, as designed to meet the unique needs of each county and city in the state; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.080 (3), each city shall: (a) Prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the comprehensive county plan; or (b) Enter into an agreement with the county pursuant to which the city shall participate in preparing a joint city - county plan for solid waste management; or (c) Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county. ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.080(1), the COUNTY is in the process of preparing a Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to replace the 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to designate RCW 70.95.080(3)(c) as its choice in conjunction with the COUNTY preparing a Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as well as any subsequent amendments, revisions or updates thereto to replace the 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the CITY, in consideration of the COUNTY handling disposal of the CITY's solid waste at the County Regional Solid Waste System as of November- 17, 2014, agrees to exercise its police powers to designate the County Regional Solid Waste System as the sole site for disposal of solid waste under its control; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate between each other to perform functions which may individually perform. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in. consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter, the above recitals which are incorpo ated herein by reference, and as authorized by RCW 70.95.080 and chapter 39.34 RCW, the PARtIE S do mutually agree as follows: SECTION NO.1: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to: (1) Reduce to writing the PARTIES' understandings as to the terms and conditions under which the COUNTY will prepare a Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ( "SCCSWMP ") as provided for in RCW 70.95.080(1) as well as any Page 2 of 12 subsequent amendments, revisions or updates thereto to replace the 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and in conjunction therewith the CITY will select RCW 70.95.050 (3)(c) as its option with respect to its solid waste management planning. RCW 70.95.050(3)(c) provides as follows: (c) Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county. ; and (2) Establish participation by the CITY in the County Regional Solid Waste System as one of the Regional Cities. SECTION NO.2: DURATION / TERMINATION This Agreement shall commence as of 12:01 A.M. November 17, 2014 and run until 11:59 P.M. on November 16, 2021. The Agreement may not be terminated during this time frame except on mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. Notwithstanding the above provision, this Agreement may be extended in five (5) year increments for a period of twenty (20) years, or terms otherwise agreed upon, by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. Provided, further the CITY acknowledges that in the event of termination, it will be obligated to prepare its own solid waste management plan pursuant to RCW70.95.080 (3)(a). SECTION NO.3 AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS The rights and obligation of the PARTIES to this Agreement are governed by this Agreement and the attachments incorporated herein by reference (the "Agreement Documents "). The Agreement Documents include: (1) This Agreement, (2) Attachment "A "- General Terms and Conditions, (3) Attachment `B" - Special Terms and Conditions with respect to the City's selection of Option under RCW 70.95.080(3) in conjunction with Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan update - ", and (4) Attachment "C "- Special Terms and Conditions with respect to PARTIES' obligations with regard to the County Regional Solid Waste System. In the event of an inconsistency among the above listed Agreement Documents, the more specific shall control. Page 3 of 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AL FRENCH, Chair ATTEST Clerk of the Board TODD MIELKE, Vice - Chairman Daniela Erickson DATED: Attest: City Clerk Page 4 of 12 SHELLY O'QUINN, Commissioner CITY OF By: Title: ATTACHMENT "A" GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. 1: DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context dictates otherwise: a. CITY shall mean the City executing this Agreement. b. City /County Interlocal Agreement shall mean that agreement executed between the City of Spokane and Spokane County entitled "1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND SPOKANE COUNTY REGARDING TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE ". c. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan or SCCSWMP shall have the same meaning as set forth in chapter 70.95 RCW, applicable WAC regulations and Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and Plan Revisions (February 2012 - Publication No. 10 -07 -005) as they presently exist or as they may be hereinafter amended. d. COUNTY shall mean Spokane County or any vendor contracted with by the COUNTY for services related to the management of solid waste. e. Flow Control Ordinance shall mean Ordinance No. 85 -0398 of the COUNTY, adopted on May 14, 1985, as amended under Resolution No. 88 -1268 of the County adopted on December 20, 1988 and Resolution No. 92 -1500 of the COUNTY adopted on October 20, 1992 and as maybe further amended from time to time. f. Regional Cities or Signatory Regional City shall mean all incorporated cities and towns in Spokane County executing this Agreement to participate in the County Regional Solid Waste System. g. County Regional Solid Waste System includes (1) transfer and disposal of all solid waste collected at the Transfer Stations for all of unincorporated Spokane County as well as transfer and disposal of all solid waste collected at the Transfer Stations for incorporated municipalities in Spokane County who have executed an interlocal agreement with Spokane County to participate in the County Regional Solid Waste System, (2) ancillary services related to solid waste management as required under chapter 70.95 RCW as well as litter control, and (3) all facilities associated with the performance of the activities addressed in (1) and (2) above. h. Solid Waste shall mean all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials. Transfer Stations shall mean the solid waste facility known as the North County Transfer Station, located at 22123 North Elk Chattaroy Road, Colbert, WA 99005, Spokane County Assessor Parcel No. 37036.9060, and the solid waste facility known as the Valley Transfer Station, located at 3941 North Sullivan, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, Spokane County Assessor Parcel No. 45024.9027 including all structures and site improvements. Waste To Energy Facility or Facility or WTE shall mean that solid waste facility located at 2900 South Geiger Boulevard, Spokane, WA 99224, including the solid waste incinerator and the portion of the facility that serves the general public for disposal of household hazardous waste, recyclables, solid waste, yard debris, and other waste products. Page 5 of 12 k. Gate Fee shall mean the amounts charged per ton of solid waste by the City of Spokane or the COUNTY for disposal of solid waste by customers at the Waste To Energy Facility and at the Transfer Stations. Customers include private self - haulers and commercial haulers who bring solid waste to the facilities. The gate fee charged by either the City of Spokane or the COUNTY shall be inclusive of all costs, including applicable taxes. All other capitalized terms used herein, which are not defined, shall have the same meaning given in the City/County Interlocal Agreement. A. 2: NOTICE All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (i) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the COUNTY or the CITY at the address set forth hereinabove such party, or at such other address as either party shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other party. A. 3: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. A. 4: ASSIGNMENT No party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other party. Provided, however, this does not prohibit the COUNTY from contracting for all or a portion of the preparation of the SCSWMP or maintenance and operation of the County Regional Solid Waste System. A. 5: LIABILITY The COUNTY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY, its officers and employees from all claims, demands, or suits in law or equity arising from the COUNTY's intentional or negligent acts or breach of its obligations under the Agreement. The COUNTY's duty to indemnify shall not apply to loss or liability caused by the intentional or negligent acts of the CITY, its officers and employees. The .CITY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers and employees from all claims, demands, or suits in law or equity arising from the CITY's intentional or negligent acts or breach of its obligations under the Agreement. The CITY's duty to indemnify shall not apply to loss or liability caused by the intentional or negligent acts of the COUNTY, its officers and employees. If the comparative negligence of the PARTIES and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the PARTIES in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. Where an officer or employee of a party is acting under the direction and control of the other party, the party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other party's officer or employee's negligence. Each party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. Each party waives, with respect to the other party only, its immunity under RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance and only as necessary to make this indemnity provision enforceable with respect to claims relating to the death or injury Page 6 of 12 of CITY and/or COUNTY employees acting within the scope of this Agreement. The PARTIES have specifically negotiated this provision. COUNTY initials CITY initials A. 6: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The PAR'11ES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The COUNTY shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY is interested only in the results to be achieved and the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which COUNTY obligations are performed is solely within the discretion of the COUNTY. Any and all employees of the County who provide obligations to the CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of the CITY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the COUNTY for any purpose. A. 7: MODIFICATION This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. A. 8: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with either party meeting its responsibilities under this Agreement shall remain with the party acquiring the property or equipment regardless of the source of funds unless mutually agreed by the PARTIES to the contrary. Upon termination, the COUNTY shall own the County Regional Solid Waste System and all of its assets. A. 9: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PAR'11ES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or . otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. A. 10: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute between the PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the PARTIES shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing. If the COUNTY CEO and the CITY cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding. The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PAR11ES. A. 11: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this. Agreement shall be governed' by the laws of the State Page 7 of 12 of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. A. 12: SEVERABILITY The PAR11E S agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. A. 13: HEADINGS The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. A. 14: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case either party fails to perform the obligations on its part to be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the respective obligation by the terms of this Agreement, the other party may, at its election, hold the other party liable for all costs and damages caused by such delay. A. 15: FILING The CITY shall file this Agreement with its City Clerk or alternatively place the Agreement on the CITY's website or other electronically retrievable public source. The COUNTY shall file this Agreement with the County Auditor, or, alternatively, place the Agreement on the COUNTY's website or other electronically retrievable public source. A. 16: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on behalf of the party for purposes of confirming this Agreement. A. 17: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. A. 18: NON - DISCRIMINATION No individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with this Agreement because of age, sex, race, color, religion, creed, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or use of a service animal by a person with disabilities. A. 19: NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES Nothing in this Agreement is intended to give, or shall give, whether directly or indirectly, any benefit or right, greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third persons. Page 8 of 12 A. 20: INSURANCE During the term of the Agreement, the COUNTY shall maintain in force at its own expense, each insurance noted below: a. Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with RCW 51.12.020, which requires subject employers to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers and Employer's Liability or Stop Gap Insurance in the amount of not less than $1,000,000. b. General Liability Insurance on an occurrence basis, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. It shall include contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under this Agreement. c. Automobile Liability Insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent of not less than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for owned, hired and non -owned vehicles. d. Professional Liability Insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by the error, omission, or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this Agreement. The coverage must remain in effect for two years after the Agreement is completed. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without at least 30 days written notice from the COUNTY or its insurer(s) to the CITY. A. 21: SUPERSEDES This Agreement shall supersede any prior agreement between the PARA LES with respect to the purpose of this Agreement as set forth in Section No. 1. A. 22: RCW 39.34 REOUIRED CLAUSES a. PURPOSE: See Section No. 1. b. DURATION: See Section No. 2. c. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS: No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. d. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES: See provisions within Contract Documents. e. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED: See A.15. f. FINANCING: See provisions within Contract Documents. g. TERMINATION: See Section No. 2. h. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION: See A.8. Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT `B" SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO CITY'S SELECTION OF OPTION UNDER RCW 70.95.080(3) IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE B. 1: CITY's SELECTION OF OPTION UNDER RCW 70.95.080(3) IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPREH H:NSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN The CITY hereby selects the following option as provided for in RCW 70.95.080(3)(c) in conjunction with its solid waste management, namely: Authorize the COUNTY to prepare a plan for the CITY's solid waste management for inclusion in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage Plan. With regard to this option, the CITY: a. Authorizes the COUNTY to prepare a plan for the CITY's solid waste management as well as any amendments, revisions or updates thereto for inclusion in the SCCSWMP consistent with chapter 70.95 RCW, applicable WAC regulations and Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and Plan Revisions (February 2012 - Publication No. 10 -07 -005), b. Agrees to provide information to the COUNTY in conjunction with the preparation of the draft SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto, c. Agrees to provide timely comments on any draft SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto, d. Agrees to timely adopt the draft SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto and in writing notify the COUNTY, e. Authorizes the COUNTY to submit the draft SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto on behalf of the CITY and COUNTY to Washington State Department of Ecology ( "WDOE') for its approval under RCW 70.95.094, and f. Agrees that when the SCCSWMP or any amendment, revisions or update thereto is finally adopted by WDOE it shall be binding upon the CITY in its solid waste management. With regard to this option, the COUNTY: Page 10 of 12 a. Shall prepare a plan for the CITY's solid waste management as well as any amendments, revisions or updates thereto for inclusion in the SCCSWMP consistent with chapter 70.95 RCW, applicable WAC regulations and Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and Plan Revisions (February 2012 - Publication No. 10 -07 -005), b. Shall submit the draft SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for its review and comments, c. Shall submit the draft SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto on behalf of the CITY and COUNTY to WDOE for its approval under RCW 70.95.094, d. Shall pay for the all costs of preparing the SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto. The COUNTY will seek financial aid from WDOE for preparing the SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto as provided for in RCW 70.95.130. Provided, however, the PARTIES agree that any moneys expended by the COUNTY is preparing. the SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto in excess of WDOE financial aid, at the sole option of the COUNTY, shall be included in establishing any "gate fee" to be charged to individuals disposing of solid waste at COUNTY owned transfer stations and ultimately reimbursed to the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall maintain records of any all costs incurred in preparing the SCCSWMP or any amendments, revisions or updates thereto. (This space intentionally left blank.) Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT "C" SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO PARTIES' OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM C. 1: CITY's OBLIGATION WITH REGARD TO THE COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CITY joins the County Regional Solid Waste System. CITY hereby covenants, agrees and contracts to exercise its police and contractual powers and authority as may now or hereafter be recognized in contract or at law to direct the deposit of Solid Waste generated within its geographical boundaries to the County Regional Solid Waste System. In conjunction with this obligation, the CITY will adopt and enforce the COUNTY's Flow Control Ordinance within its jurisdiction. During the term of this Agreement, subject to the exceptions currently in effect contained in the Flow Control Ordinance, the CITY (i) shall designate the County Regional Solid Waste System as its sole disposal site at all times, (ii) shall not, directly or indirectly, site or permit to be sited any solid waste disposal site other than the County Regional Solid Waste System, and (iii) shall enforce the Flow Control Ordinance continuously. In executing this Agreement, the CITY is designating the County Regional Solid Waste System as its sole disposal site at all times as required by the preceding sentence. C. 2: COUNTY'S OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COUNTY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM COUNTY shall maintain and operate the County Regional Solid Waste System during the term of this Agreement. COUNTY shall establish and set the gate fee to be charged for the delivery of all solid waste to the Transfer Stations. The City of Spokane shall establish and set the gate fee to be charged for the delivery of all solid waste to the WTE. The Transfer Stations gate fee may include a component to address the cost of closure, postclosure and cleanup of pre- existing landfills. For the purpose of this section, the terminology pre - existing landfills shall mean COUNTY owned Solid Waste disposal sites that have been closed and includes Colbert Landfill, Greenacres Landfill, Mica Landfill, as well as the County owned portion of the Old Marshall Landfill. COUNTY shall establish and maintain a solid waste advisory committee as provided for in RCW 70.95.165 to assist in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal and to review and comment upon proposed rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption. Each Signatory Regional City shall have representation on the solid waste advisory committee during the term of this Agreement. Page 12 of 12 Spokane County's New Regional Solid Waste System Gate Fee Components \,.... • Some Components have not yet been determined ■ Disposal ❑ Transfer Station Purchase ▪ Transfer Station Operations ❑ Administration • Landfill Closure ❑ System Programs