Loading...
2014, 05-13 Regular MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,May 13, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Bates, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Ed Pace, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk,Planner Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councihnembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Bates: reported that he attended the stonnwater improvement project community meeting; went to the monthly 9-1-1 Board meeting where they discussed the state-wide outage that occurred April 10 and said that we are fortunate to have CrimeCheck as a backup in those situations;went to the Spokane Valley Tech Center luncheon; attended the Worker's Memorial Day Ceremony at Mission Park; went to the grand re-opening of the Sheriff's SCOPE station at the mall as they moved from downstairs to upstairs; went to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Board Meeting; the Law Enforcement Appreciation Breakfast as well as the Law Enforcement Officers' memorial at the courthouse; attended the City Hall at the Mall and expressed thanks to Mayor Grafos for his State of the City presentation; and said lie participated in the Junior Lilac Parade. Councilmember Wick: stated that he attended the Valley Hospital Community Meeting and said they have some big capital plans for that facility; went to the Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee meeting which featured members of our staff concerning the subject of Bridging the Valley, including the Barker Road separation; discussed the Bridging the Valley topic at the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Board Meeting and said that committee has not had a direct role in the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the group mentioned their desire to review all Comp Plan transportation chapters; said he gave a presentation to the Good Roads Committee about our pavement preservation plan; went to the Valleyfest Community Dinner and Auction with over 250 people in attendance; and participated in the Junior Lilac Parade. Council Regular Meeting 05-13--2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council:05-27-2014 Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he also attended the State of the City Address and said that Mayor Grafos did a remarkable job and had a very upbeat message, and also complimented Mr. Wasson for his article in the newspaper that covered that event; said he went to the Valleyfest Dinner and Auction; and attended a ribbon cutting for a small local upholstery business. Councilmember Hafner: reported that he went to the community meeting at the Roadway Inn; attended the Board of Health Meeting, which he chairs, and said they saw a presentation concerning oil trains and safety factors; also saw a presentation by the Fire Chief regarding CPR and how we can be involved with our Smartphone; went to the SCOPE dedication program; attended the Chaplain's breakfast honoring those Iaw enforcement people who put their lives on the line for us all; also went to the Law Enforcement Memorial; and said he too attended the City Hall at the Mall and that Mayor Grafos delivered an outstanding State of the City address, Councilmember Pace said he went to the stormwater projection orientation meeting at the Roadway Inn; went to the Health Board Directors meeting; attended the Workers' Memorial at Mission Park; the Spokane Regional Health District Finance meeting; the Valley Chamber of Commerce Government Action Committee meeting; the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) planning committee; also went to the City Hall at the Mall and commended Mayor Grafos for his outstanding address and commended Mr. Wasson on the article he wrote for the Spokesman; and said he rode in the Junior Lilac Parade. Councilmember Higgins: said he also attended the Valley Tech luncheon, the Memorial Ceremony, the SCOPE station opening; Officer's Memorial and Law Enforcement breakfast, as well as the City Hall at the Mall, and said that Mayor Grafos gave an excellent presentation on what we arc and where we're going. Councilmember Higgins also commended Mr. Wasson on his article. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos reported that he went to the worker's memorial at Mission Park; the SCOPE office changing at the mall; the Tech Open House; the Retired Military Officers' event as well as the Law Enforcement Memorial at Spokane County; and participated in a finance committee meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment;no comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent A:renda. a.Approval of claim vouchers on May 13,2014 Request for Council Action,Totaling: $2,990,351.59 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 30,2014: $422,585.16 c. Approval of April 15, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d.Approval of April 22, 2014 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2.Motion Consideration: Stormwater Effectiveness Studies Consultant Agreement—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to negotiate, finalize and execute a WSDOT Local Agency Agreement for consulting services with Herrera Environmental Consultants for the Eastern Washington Effectiveness Study Development -- Phase I Project,for up to$270,000 for any or all activities in the proposed scope of work. Public Works Director Guth explained that City staff with concurrence from staff representing sixteen cities and six counties in eastern Washington, is leading the initial effort for this project, receiving grant funding from the Department of Ecology for the first phase of studied development; he said future phases would require other jurisdictions to take the lead of various tasks and studies to be determined; and requires a commitment from all jurisdictions to fund the studies. Mr. Guth explained that this is 100% reimbursable for up to $300,000 and as noted in his Request for Council Action, he explained the project benefits; the Council Regular Meeting 05-13--2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council:05-27-2014 process for soliciting a consultant, and the ultimate recommendation to choose Herrera Environmental Consultants. Deputy Mayor Woodard said this is in response from complaints about unfunded mandates and feels this funded mandate is a good start. Mr. Guth also explained that the Phases are simply a designation for the population of the cities as categorized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Ecology, Mayor Grafos invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Roundabouts—Erie Guth, Sean Messner Senior Traffic Engineer Messner explained that tonight's presentation is in response to several questions generated concerning various factors of roundabouts, and by means of his PowerPoint presentation, explained what roundabouts are and are not, the purpose of roundabouts, mentioned we have three, said they improve safety, increase the performance at intersections, reduce pollution, allow for better accommodated accesses, and in the long run, save money. He also mentioned costs for roundabouts versus cost of signalization, how roundabouts can accommodate driveways, when to consider roundabouts, how to make them successful and that they are not always the solution but are a tool to enhance an intersection by relieving congestion and providing traffic calming. Discussion ensued on varying cost depending on rights-of-way; different sizes for different areas; pedestrians and the refuge island, the idea of burying conduit for future flashing signals if nearby schools, and a question from Councilmember Bates about accident studies done before and after having a roundabout, and Mr.Messner said he was not aware of any. 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA 2014)—Lori Barlow Senior Planner Barlow said that she and Planner Palaniuk have been assigned to the Comprehensive Plan; and that her role tonight is to continue discussion with Council and give Council time to discuss these proposals as Council moves forward next week to ultimately decide via motions on each proposed comprehensive plan amendment. She said staff is here tonight to answer any questions and that next week Council can approve, modify or deny the proposals, and then the process will move to two ordinance readings. Ms. Barlow briefly went over each proposal. City Manager Jackson confirmed that the motion on the 20th will determine if these items go to a first and second ordinance reading; and that tonight is Council's opportunity to discuss those so as to be prepared for the vote next week.Mayor Grafos clarified that there is no voting tonight, but voting will be done next week at which time, the public will have an opportunity to comment. CPA 01-14: The question of what to do with that area, if anything, or when, was discussed, with Councilmember Wick commenting that members of the Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee had many comments on the river area and were encouraging us to take more advantage of that corridor. Councilmember Higgins mentioned if the zone were changed, it would allow more options for use, and Ms. Barlow confirmed that action on this proposal would not bind Council in any way to sell or dispose of the property, and said a private party now would be very limited on what could occur on that area. Mr. Jackson said that staff has discussed this and feels it has merit enough to bring to Council, but that the fundamental question is whether or not to re-zone the area; he said a concept was brought up years ago about a restaurant and parking to enhance recreation use; and said if the property remains park property, then that discussion would be taken off the table. Councilmember Pace said he likes the idea of having flexibility; and Mayor Grafos said he has concerns that once it gets re-zoned, it could be used as parking and feels a re-zone would be "going down a slippery slope," and said he feels it should be left as it is. When asked about putting in a parking area,Ms. Barlow confirmed that even without a re-zone, a parking area could be installed as an amenity to the trailhead or park, but it couldn't be used for a private office to develop as parking for their business; and in response to questions about vendors,Ms. Barlow said likely mobile vendors for various functions would be permitted, possibly with a written agreement. City Attorney Driskell said he sees no reason why that would not be permitted, but would like to research that further. Councilmember Bates mentioned lie is a little disappointed that some other organizations like Council Regular Meeting 05-13--2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council:05-27-2014 Friends of the Centennial Trail haven't been interested in this; he said the State Parks Department said they prefer leaving it as open space, but we could still change the zoning if desired. Ms. Barlow concurred. The idea of developing the area for a first-class restaurant, or even coffee shop was briefly discussed, as well as the amount of land in question, which is a little over an acre. Councilmember Wick mentioned he likes the idea of flexibility and having for example, a rental equipment business renting bikes, rollerblades, and other equipment to use on the trail. Several Councilmembers expressed the positive aspect of changing the zoning in order to allow greater flexibility in use of that area. It was noted that this would come forward as a motion next week. CPA 02-14: Concerning the SCRAPS parcel, there was some discussion about the idea of aggregating one parcel to the other, boundary line adjustments or eliminations, and that none of those options would result in having the two parcels the same zone. It was noted that this would come forward as a motion next week. CPA 03-14: For the Barker and Sprague proposal to change from low to high density residential, during Council discussion.several Councilmembers mentioned that this is an extremely difficult decision as they take into consideration the citizens' desire to maintain the existing character of their neighborhood while keeping in mind the idea of adhering to the criteria and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and/or Municipal Code, and whether apartments would be a good "fit" for that neighborhood. There was also discussion about the need to do something to address the intersection problems, and that Council would be making a decision on the zoning and not on a particular project. Council acknowledged the issues with overcrowding schools and area changing over time. In response to a Council question about right-of-way and existing infrastructure, Ms. Barlow said she would have to research the width of the right-of-way on Barker; that there are no curbs or sidewalks but there is a pathway on the west side and that with the current zoning of R3, a fourteen to twenty unit duplex would be permissible. Mayor Grafos asked about Spokane County's connection off Chapman Road and Ms. Barlow said she would research that and include it as part of next week's packet. Planner Barlow explained that the remaining proposed amendments are the text amendments and Council agreed to bring those back for a motion consideration, and indicated they were comfortable moving them forward for a motion and did not need to discuss them tonight. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 8:00 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:12 p.m. 5. Federal Consultant--Mike Jackson As noted on his May 13, 2014 Request for Council Action form, City Manager Jackson explained that with the development and application of the TIGER Grant for the Barker Overpass, staff considered hiring a federal legislative analyst to assist in creating awareness and support for this project as well as future projects such as Bridging the Valley; he said this position would be similar to Briahna Taylor's, and in this case, we would be contracting with Mr. Travis Lumpkin who also works for Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell. Mr. Jackson said that he, Mr. Lumpkin and the City's Finance Committee met and feels Mr. Lumpkin would be an asset to the City. Mr. Jackson said he feels it is important to have someone in Washington, D.C. to bring forth our issues and he has already made some suggestions about Bridging the Valley. Mr. Jackson said lie is asking for consensus for moving forward with a contract and that this would require a future budget amendment, which will be forthcoming. Council concurred and gave their consensus. 5a, Solid Waste Update—Mike Jackson(added agenda item) Mr. Jackson said this issue is coming close to a decision point; and the purpose of tonight's discussion is not to go over the fine details, but more to let Council know that next week staff anticipates bringing two options to Council. Mr. Jackson noted that the numerous previous Council actions taken are listed in the Request for Council Action form placed on Council's dias tonight, as well as a narrative on the various Council Regular Meeting 05-13--2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council;05-27-2014 alternatives that have been explored and discussed, and said it would be beneficial for Council to read the material as an aid in moving forward next week. Mr. Jackson said that a determination was made previously that we should move forward on our own solid waste plan and staff has been working with the Department of Ecology in that regard, to have a plan submitted in time for November 16, and said lie wants that plan ready whether we go with the County or a private vendor. He said we also talked about investigating public/private partnerships, and that only one potential private vendor has been identified, that of Sunshine Recyclers Incorporation; and said they are working through some of the final details. Mr. Jackson stated that all this is in anticipation of the issue coming to Council next week but is contingent on some final information from both Spokane County and Sunshine, and said once we have the materials, we will come forward with two separate options, adding that staff spent considerable time on both options. To recap, he said we wrote to Spokane County with some concerns, they replied and made several changes in acknowledgement of our request although they did not agree with all our requests; he said staff is currently working through a"handful of points" and still working to try to obtain a price quote from the County. In terms of what the County has considered, he said they have not reviewed the RFP for operation of the transfer stations, and if they were to provide a rate, it would be more of a rate they'd be able to live with as opposed to a rate done by a study. He said the County extended our deadline until the end of May, that we think that should work, and we want to complete this as well;and said if necessa►y,this issue can be brought back not only next week but the following week. Mr. Jackson went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the Council's CORE beliefs, the timeline of the issue since about 2011, a comparison of options for private versus County, and mentioned the attached letters as well, and said some of the content of those letters will be in contract form next week, and we can compare the final interlocal proposed by the County with suggestions we made and see how that comports with Council's wishes; and said that once we bring this forward in the next two weeks, this should represent the best offer from the private sector and from the County. 6.Advance Agenda Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if Council would be getting a revised Advance Agenda based on tonight's added agenda item of solid waste, and Mr. Jackson said that a new advance agenda will be forthcoming, and staff is still gathering information. INFORMATION ONLY (Will not be reported or discussed): 7. Centennial Trail Draft Agreement was for information only and was not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson said he received information from Briahna Taylor about upcoming discussions on streamlined sales tax mitigation and federal legislation that would address taxing Internet sales, and said he is still sifting through the materials, but it appears if the new legislation were approved, it would represent a net loss to us. Mr. Jackson said he would bring up this topic again once he has more information. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. -..5'.,2.-- ,...4;>.--",„--". 1 AT ES) Iiean Grafos,Mayor hristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk Council Regular Meeting 05-13--2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council:05-27-2014 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 5/13/14 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information 1 admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Transfer Station/Transport/Disposal GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 Powers vested in Legislative Bodies of Code Cities; RCW 35A.13 — Non-charter code city; RCW 35A.21 Provisions affecting All Code Cities; RCW 70.95 — Solid Waste Management — Reduction & Recycling; RCW 70.105 — Hazardous Waste Management; Interlocal Agreement between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley — RE: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, expires November 16, 2014. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has adopted goals related to solid waste in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 budgets. The 2014 goal adopted by Council is to "Implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley." Council has been briefed and/or discussed solid waste on a number of occasions. The following is a synopsis of those meetings but not all inclusive: On January 22, 2013, Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane, and Spokane County, to jointly conduct the Solid Waste Analysis; on February 6, 2013, Council participated in a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives; on February 26, 2013, Council discussed solid waste in detail at the Council Workshop; on August, 28, 2013, Council attended the presentation of an analysis of solid waste alternatives completed by HDR; On September 3, 2013, Council discussed the draft solid waste study completed by HDR; on September 4, 2013, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives and make a specific proposal to the County; on October 3, 2013, Council discussed solid waste alternatives and approved sending Spokane County Commissioners a letter re-emphasizing Spokane Valley's position to reconsider the specific option offered by Spokane Valley at the joint meeting; on February 24, 2014, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to continue discussions on solid waste alternatives and to review/discuss Spokane County's proposed draft of the Interlocal Agreement for joining its system; on February 27, 2014, Council attended the Regional Solid Waste meeting at CenterPlace; and on February 28, 2014, Council attended the Council of Governments where solid waste was one of many topics. On March 11, 2014 Council discussed three primary topics including development of a solid waste plan and continuing to pursue public private options as well as reviewing Spokane County's draft Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste, Council reviewed the proposed Interlocal and discussed talking points to provide to the County Commissioners. On March 20, 2014 the City sent a letter to the County Commissioners enumerating the City's concerns. On March 31, 2014, the Commissioners responded with a letter speaking to the City's concerns and providing a revised draft Interlocal addressing some, but not all of the City's points. Staff continues to communicate with Spokane County on revisions. Staff anticipates bringing a final draft of the Spokane County Interlocal and a final draft contract with the only available private option (Sunshine Recyclers) back to Council on May 20, 2014 or shortly thereafter for consideration by Council. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been actively pursuing options for solid waste disposal since the extension of the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane County was approved by our City Council on October 25, 2011. The purpose of the extension was to allow time for the various cities and Spokane County to determine solid waste alternatives. The various alternatives have evolved over the last 3 years from the possible continuation of the existing solid waste system, to Spokane being a vendor only, to the current status where an Interlocal Agreement was signed between the City of Spokane and Spokane County and Spokane County is proposing to own and operate a solid waste system. Spokane Valley had formally offered to partner with Spokane County (September 4 and October 3, 2013) prior to Spokane County moving independently to negotiate with the City of Spokane and making a decision to purchase the Colbert and Spokane Valley transfer stations from the City of Spokane and continue to send waste to the City of Spokane's waste to energy incinerator. The City of Spokane Valley received a proposed Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Services from Spokane County on Monday, February 24, 2014. On that same day the City met in joint session with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss solid waste. This was followed by a meeting of County Commissioners, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Airway Heights, Deer Park and other stakeholders on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at CenterPlace to further discuss the proposed Spokane County solid waste system and Interlocal agreement. The City of Spokane Valley is now faced with decisions regarding solid waste. As highlighted by the Department of Ecology at the February 27, 2014 meeting, the November 16, 2014 termination creates some very time-sensitive decisions which the City of Spokane Valley has addressed. 1. Selection of an option regarding development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. The City's options per RCW 70.95.080 are 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 county plan; 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 plan. The City of Spokane Valley selected option a above. Staff is working with the consulting firm of Green Solutions to develop a Solid Waste Plan for the City of Spokane Valley. Staff is working with the Department of Ecology and the consultant in the development of the plan. 2. Discuss and develop terms and conditions that the City of Spokane Valley would like to see in Spokane County's proposed Interlocal Agreement if the City should choose to sign an agreement with Spokane County. Staff worked with Council to develop terms and conditions and conveyed those concepts to Spokane County. The County has responded to the City and has made a number of changes to the Interlocal Agreement. However on some significant points, the County has determined not to make changes and has conveyed those to the City as well. 3. Continue to investigate public-private partnerships if found to provide adequate service levels and reduce the cost of services to Spokane Valley residents. Staff has continued to investigate public private partnerships and has narrowed down the list of potential private transfer station operations that can be in place by November 16, 2014 to one, which is Sunshine Recyclers Inc. with an existing transfer station located in Spokane Valley at University and Montgomery. Staff has been working to develop a draft service contract with Sunshine, the details of which we anticipate providing to City Council next week, May 20, 2014 or May 27. OPTIONS: Discussion/provide feedback on these issues to City Manager. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: At this time no formal motion is requested. Formal motion consideration will come to City Council at a meeting either May 20 or perhaps on May 27. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City currently does not have a revenue source for solid waste other than the general fund. Costs to date include the HDR study developed through an MOU with Spokane County and the City of Spokane, follow-up work by City Manager with solid waste consultants Shaw Environmental and Green Solutions. The City potentially could recover administrative or other costs through various means in its final solid waste system. This would be a topic for future discussion. The reduction in rates, if any, would directly benefit the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. The City itself would not benefit directly because we would not pay directly for transfer, transport and disposal of solid waste services. STAFF CONTACT: City Manager- Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Letter from City of Spokane Valley to Spokane County Commissioners Re: City of Spokane Valley Comments to proposed Interlocal agreement. Letter from Spokane County to City of Spokane Valley Re: Responses to City of Spokane Valley Comments Proposed Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement. 5/13/2014 Solid Waste 2014 Council Goal "Implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley" Council CORE BELIEFS Section 8: We solicit the City Manager's support in conducting the affairs of the City with due regard for: (d) Seeking creative ways to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services, including examination of private sector alternatives in lieu of governmentally provided services. 1 Timeline • Regional Solid Waste Governance Summit. 2/2011 • Spokane says they want to be a vendor. • City of Spokane Valley signs 3 year agreement with City of Spokane &Spokane County Regional Solid Waste System for continued operation while we determine alternative 10/2011 operations for solid waste transfer station, transport &disposal. • City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane, Spokane County and Cheney work together on an RFP to study alternatives to solid waste disposal including looking at more efficient 2011 operation of Waste to Energy Plant. • No response to RFP. 2 1 5/13/2014 Timeline • City of Spokane indicates that Spokane will make best business decision for Spokane. 2011 • City of Spokane Valley presses for RFP to determine costs of alternatives for solid waste disposal so we can make an informed decision. _ J 4/2012 • Joint meeting with City of Spokane. Spokane would examine all assets. • Three major services, recycling, transfer station, transportation services, and a burner. 1 3 Timeline • MOU for Solid Waste Alternatives. Collaboration between Spokane Valley,City of Spokane &Spokane County to determine solid waste management plans for the region, which may consist of the use of existing or new solid waste facilities and services and 1/2013 which may be offered and entered into jointly or separately as determined in the best interest of each of the parties. • City of Spokane (Spokane Solid Waste System) agrees to fund up to $46,000 Spokane Valley and Spokane County would pay 50%of the balance, or about $46,000 each. • Council participated in a joint meeting with Spokane County and Jim Waveda of Department of Ecology to discuss alternatives for solid waste. Received handout 2/2013 • detailing solid waste planning. Extensive workshop agenda item for City Council. 4 2 5/13/2014 Timeline • Council attended the presentation at CenterPlace regarding an analysis of solid waste alternatives completed by HDR. • City of Spokane and Spokane County favored option to utilize the WTE Plant. 8/2013 • Spokane Valley disagreed. Supported outright purchase of transfer station and putting transfer station operation,transport&disposal out to bid. • Council discussed the draft solid waste study completed by HDR. • Council hosted a meeting with Commissioners to discuss our solid waste alternatives. 9/2013 • Hired Shaw Environmental for review of/assistance with solid waste planning& consultation on alternatives. • Council discussed solid waste alternatives and approved sending Spokane County Commissioners a letter, prior to public hearing, re-emphasizing Spokane Valley's position to reconsider the specific option offered by Spokane Valley at the joint meeting • CoSV receives letter from Spokane County. RE: Regional Solid Waste Management noting 10/2013 Board voted for option in best interest of all parties, and that an invitation to formally join new regional system would be sent out to municipalities soon, - - a Timeline • Contract with Green Solutions to assist in development of Comprehensive Management 1/2014 Solid Waste Plan • CoSV receives letter from Spokane County for Participation in Spokane County Regional SW System • City of Spokane surpluses transfer stations and approves Interlocal with Spokane County in 2 separate actions. interlocal terminates the 1989 agreement for Spokane Solid Waste 2/2014 System. • Spokane County approves Interlocal between Spokane County and City of Spokane regarding transfer and disposal of solid waste and formally terminating the 1989 agreement as of November 16, 2014. 6 3 5/13/2014 Timeline • Spokane County issues RFP for operation of Transfer Stations. • Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to continue 2/2014 discussions on solid waste alternatives and to review/discuss Spokane County's Interlocal Agreement to join its solid waste system. 401 • Council attended Spokane County's Regional Solid Waste meeting at CenterPlace. • Council attended the Council of Governments where Solid Waste was one of many topics. • CoSV pursues own SW plan; investigation of public/private partnerships; and continues 1 to work on Interlocal with Spokane County. • Council conducted a discussion on the proposed Interlocal Agreement. 3/2014 • Staff continues to communicate with County. • CoSV sent letter of comments discussed by Council on the proposed Interlocal to BoCC J 7 Timeline • Proposals due to Spokane County for Transfer Station Operations.The tentative schedule for evaluation of the proposals is:April 7, 2014-Evaluation Committee meets to review proposals: April 22,2014-Interviews conducted, if necessary; May 3/2014 19,2014-Selection Committee completes review of qualifications/proposals/interviews and prepares recommendation(s) to the Board of County Commissioners; May 27, 2014-Commissioners consider recommendation(s) and authorizes staff to commence negotiations;June 2, 2014- Count commences ne:otiations. 4/2014 • Staff continues to communicate with County. • Staff continues to discuss Interlocal with Spokane County. 5/2014 • Staff explores public- private partnerships s 4 5/13/2014 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY 9 Facto'" Sunshine Contract County Interlocal Agreement Services Transfer, transport & disposal of Transfer, transport &disposal of trash, organics/green waste, trash, organics/green waste, construction /demolition waste, construction /demolition waste, recyclables, moderate risk- recyclables, moderate risk— household hazardous waste, & household hazardous waste, & white goods. Self-haul. white goods. Self-haul, Service Fee ($/ton) Will Provide Not known if we will have a cost. Escalation Will Provide Not known. WTE component will increase at CPI. Transfer station operations may increase based on CPI and labor index. Transport costs may increase based on CPI and fuel index. io Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY Factor Sunshine Contract County interlocal Agreement Control over rate increases Rate increases as specified In Not known. City will only contract and are automatic have opportunity to review and comment on proposed County rates. SWAC committee will provide recommendations. Pricing dependent on No Not known. Pricing may tonnage? depend on number of cities that sign ILA. Term Term to be determined 7 years--3 year out 5 5/13/2014 Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY 11 Factor Sunshine Contract County Interlocal Agreement Renewals Mutually agreeable Four 5-year extensions, extensions mutually agreeable Early opt-out of contract? Not likely After 3 years (but alternate option would have to be identified and evaluated) Pooling of tonnage with Won't impact City's pricing Depends on number of cities other regional cities that sign ILA; impact on pricing unknown. RFP for long-haul transport After end of contract term Potentially within 3 years and disposal (but contract for transfer station operations is 10 years) Comparison of Options: PRIVATE vs. COUNTY 12 Factor Sunshine Contract County Interlocal Agreement Full control and management City County responsibility for solid waste Revenue Possible road impact fee Sharing of utility tax revenues based on proportionate tonnage delivered by cities/County. Ownership of transfer Sunshine County stations 6 SökieAa� Valle11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000/ Fax: 509.921.1008 1 cityhall®spokanevalley.org March 20, 2014 Honorable Chairman Al French and Board of County Commissioners Spokane County Courthouse 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Re: City of Spokane Valley comments to proposed interlocal agreement To the Board of County Commissioners: Thank you for providing the proposed interlocal agreement to join and participate in the Spokane County Solid Waste System. The City received the proposed interlocal on February 24, 2014, and participated in several meetings with Spokane County during the week of February 24 on the County's new solid waste system. The City of Spokane Valley City Council conducted a discussion on the proposed interlocal agreement at its March 11,2014 regular meeting, Additionally, City staff has reviewed the proposed interlocal agreement. As you previously indicated, the proposed interlocal agreement is a starting draft and you are seeking comments and input into the draft and for the establishment of the County's proposed system. Based on City Council discussion and staff review, I met with Chairman Al French to discuss Spokane Valley's comments and offered to provide those in writing. As discussions progress some comments may be revised or new issues may develop. The City of Spokane Valley has identified the following comments, concepts and issues of importance to our consideration for participation in the County's proposed system: 1. Given the time constraints on all parties,the City desires to work to general agreement on the concepts below. The City believes that the parties already concur on many of the issues and anticipates that those will be incorporated into the next draft of the proposed interlocal agreement by the County. The City desires to enter into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") on resolving the others. After the MOU is executed, the parties may then work through details to include the other concepts in the proposed interlocal agreement once they are resolved. 2. The City of Spokane Valley(the"City") desires to have an actual rate or guaranteed rate ceiling incorporating all costs (capital costs, operating costs,program costs,and overhead costs)prior to executing the proposed interlocal agreement. 3. The City believes that combining transfer station operations with transport and disposal will result in the lowest cost overall for the system. In order to do so,the City desires the County to issue an immediate Request for Proposals for combined transfer station operations,transport services, and disposal services to allow transition in three years to the lowest cost option. The City recognizes that the County is seeking a contractor to operate the transfer stations under a 10-year term and that an early termination clause will be included in the operating contract. 4. The City desires to have future handling of solid waste tonnage from the West Plains area clearly delineated, including what transfer station, transport and disposal options will be utilized. The City has concerns about what may happen if the new County system pays off the transfer stations after three years and utilizes an option other than the City of Spokane's Waste-to-Energy facility. Specifically,the City believes a new West Plains transfer station is not necessary as there are alternatives (use of the existing transfer stations) and a new West Plains station would result in excessive additional costs for the entire system. In any case, the City of Spokane Valley does not believe that all system users should support the development of a West Plains transfer station, 5. The City desires to establish a governing body with authority to set rates, service levels, and other operational authority and control for the regional system, including local jurisdiction participation on such body. Other issues for consideration include possibly setting a rate ceiling, setting or removing the minimum load charge for self-haulers, and possible ownership issues. The City has remained consistent in regards to governance as it is critical to the City's commitment of representing our citizens through rate setting and cost control authority. 6. The City requests a commitment from the County to always seek and obtain the lowest price option,with an opt-out available for the City if the County pursues higher-priced options. If ownership is part of the agreement, the City would seek either buy-out or recovery of the City's portion towards the capital investment. The City also seeks dialog on recovery of operational and other enterprise fund reserves should the City withdraw at any time. 7. The City requests that if an intermodal facility or rail transloader is developed related to solid waste, it must have direct access at the same location to both Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rail lines in order to take advantage of competition for landfill disposal. Also,future competitive bids should not be restricted to a specific transport mode or specific intermodal system. System users should not directly fund the development of rail facilities. These facilities should be funded by the private sector or other public/private partnerships. 8. The City desires a clear and transparent accounting of all aspects of operation, including any interfund transfers or other comingling of County resources, revenues, or expenses. • 9. The City requests the County to give consideration to local jurisdictions and their ability to provide certain services such as recycling or education in order to allow local jurisdictions more control over rates. 10. The City desires the gate rate to be reduced by the amount of the capital payment when the transfer stations are paid off. Specifically, the City desires that the 2 interlocal agreement will clearly show a direct correlation between capital purchase payoff and rate reduction(e.g.,if capital payment amount is equal to $11 per ton,upon pay off,the gate rate will be reduced by$11 per ton). 11. The City desires to discuss the possibilities for ownership and equity in system facilities. The City would like clarification on what ownership, buy-in, and buy- out would mean, how it could be accomplished, and how it would work for rate payers of various jurisdictions. Additionally,the City would like to understand how system control would be tied to ownership. 12. The City desires to have strict limits on any rent, lease, or depreciation costs included for the period of the agreement, including limits on what may be imposed after the facilities are fully paid. Additionally,the City desires to clearly identify any equipment or facility replacement or maintenance funds that may be required throughout the term of the agreement. Finally,the City desires to identify how future capital costs, including any reserve funds, will be applied to the gate rates. 13. The City desires to see the final rates (or rate estimates) with (1) all County, City and other local jurisdiction waste, and(2) all waste except for the City in order to understand the impact of the City joining the system. 14. The City desires to have revenue sharing options included in the interlocal agreement, in the event there is ever a utility tax or revenue component. Additionally, the City desires clarification on how revenue sharing would work with any revenues distributed by the City of Spokane under the County's interlocal agreement with Spokane. 15. The City desires that the County or system will enforce all flow control requirements. Another possibility may be for the system to pay for all flow control enforcement. 16. The City must have the ability to submit an RFP prior to termination in the event that it desires to go with a non-system alternative. In that RFP, the City would contemplate siting of a new transfer station. The City would require that section C(1)(ii) be amended to allow this. 17. City will want to discuss mutual indemnification further depending on its involvement in and level of control and responsibility for system. If the City has no or little control over the system and rates, it should not be required to indemnify the County. 18. The City desires to get reports of City of Spokane Valley tonnage going forward. 19. The City requests clarification on how the County envisions flow control working with the City of Spokane, especially if there are price differences and the Waste- to-Energy facility is cheaper than the system. Further, how much of the City of Spokane's waste goes to the transfer stations currently, and has the City of Spokane committed to continuing such deliveries? 20. The City desires clarification on how the County would make the required balloon payment in the event it opts-out at the end of three years and what impact it would have on signatory cities. 3 21. The proposed interlocal agreement broadly defines solid waste to include materials such as industrial wastes, sewage sludge, abandoned vehicles, and contaminated soils. Will such materials be accepted at the transfer stations? 22. The City intends to develop and adopt its own comprehensive solid waste management plan. 23. The City desires information on the status of the legacy landfills, including projected costs for ongoing closure maintenance,projected rate impacts, and projected final closure date. 24. The City requests a term of three years, although depending on County's agreement to implement cheaper alternatives at the three year opt-out,the City may be willing to discuss a possible longer term. Further, the City desires ability to exit without mutual agreement by providing reasonable advance notice. The City would consider possible limits on when this might be allowed (e.g., at the three-year buy-out period). 25. The City desires to discuss equity issues if the City of Spokane desires to join the County system in the future. As indicated, these are issues identified by the City specific to the handling of City of Spokane Valley solid waste. It is my understanding the County is revising the draft interlocal to be re-sent to prospective members. I encourage you to incorporate the City's comments or contact me for discussion/clarification. I believe we already concur on many of the comments and issues while some comments will require negotiation and discussion. The City would be happy to meet and discuss these with you. Finally, the City of Spokane Valley has made the determination to develop its own Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. This plan will be developed with alternatives for inclusion in the County's system and possible public/private partnerships. Our objective is to develop an interlocal that will allow for final comparison and timely decisions on our part as soon as County rates are provided. Sincerel , Mike Is ekson, City Manager c: Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Bill Bates, Councilmember 4 • 'f. d;ki SPOKANE14 k� *, COUNTy E O1,i10E OF COUNTY n'Co,1L111ssIONER.S TCDD M1ELKE,1ST DISI'RICI'•SHELLY O'QUINN,2ND DISTRICT•Al.FRENCH,3RD DISTRICT March 31, 2014 Mr.Mike Jackson,City Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley,WA. 99206 RE: Responses to City of Spokane Valley Comments Proposed Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Dear Mr.Jackson, Thank you for your letter of March 20, 2014, wherein you present the City's comments, concepts, and issues of importance relative to consideration of participation in the County's Regional Solid Waste System. We have made a number of modifications to the Interlocal Agreement(ILA) in response to the comments that we received at the meeting at CenterPlace on February 27th and the comments presented in your letter. Updated versions of the ILA are enclosed for your consideration. Note that we have included a version in"track changes"format,as well as a"clean"version. Modifications to the ILA include the following: 1. We have modified "SECTION NO. 2: DURATION/TERMINATION" to allow for termination of the agreement by the City after 3 years,without penalty. 2. We have modified ATTACHMENT "C" to clarify the purposes of the solid waste enterprise fund,and to address the disposition of assets in the unlikely event that this fund is ever dissolved. 3. We have modified ATTACHMENT "C" to expand the responsibilities of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to include participation in the budgeting process for the system, and providing recommendations regarding Gate Fees. 4. We have modified ATTACHMENT "C" to clarify the County's intent to further investigate alternatives for solid waste disposal during the term of the ILA, including the issuance of an RFP in approximately May of 2016. 5. We have added language to ATTACHMENT "C" clarifying that any utility taxes paid to the County by the City of Spokane pursuant to the City/County Agreement will be distributed to the participating jurisdiction proportionately based on tons of solid waste. Below, we have provided responses to each of the comments and questions included in your letter. We believe that these responses will clarify the County's position. As evidenced by the ILA modifications noted above,we have agreed to some of the City's proposals. However,there are some proposed changes to which we remain philosophically opposed. 1 1 16 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509)477-2265 Mr.Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 2 1. Given the time constraints on all parties, the City desires to work to general agreement on the concepts below. The City believes that the parties already concur on many of the issues and anticipates that those will be incorporated into the next draft of the proposed interlocal agreement by the County. The City desires to enter into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU') on resolving the others. After the MOU is executed, the parties may then work through details to include the other concepts in the proposed interlocal agreement once they are resolved. RESPONSE: The County believes, in light of the mounting time constraints, that it is more appropriate to resolve all issues and include them with the ILA as opposed to the MOU/ILA concept. 2. The City of Spokane Valley (the "City") desires to have an actual rate or guaranteed rate ceiling incorporating all costs (capital costs, operating costs, program costs, and overhead costs)prior to executing the proposed interlocal agreement. RESPONSE: The County is more than willing to provide the City with an "estimate". At present, we believe that the gate fees will be at or below the present fees. It is not appropriate to provide a guaranteed fee to the City of Spokane Valley. This would place all the risk on the County and the other participating jurisdictions. The gate fees finally adopted will take many factors into account, and will depend in large part on the commitment of flow from the various jurisdictions. • 3. The City believes that combining transfer station operations with transport and disposal will result in the lowest cost overall for the system. In order to do so, the City desires the County to issue an immediate Request for Proposals for combined transfer station operations, transport services, and disposal services to allow transition in three years to the lowest cost option. The City recognizes that the County is seeking a contractor to operate the transfer stations under a 10 year term and that an early termination clause will be included in the operating contract. RESPONSE: The County respectfully disagrees. We believe that other disposal options will be available within a 3 to 5 year time frame, which will provide a more competitive bidding climate. We further believe that a 10-year term will provide for more competitive rates for operation of the transfer stations. • • 4. The City desires to have future handling of solid waste tonnage from the West Plains area clearly delineated, including what transfer station, transport and disposal options will be utilized. The City has concerns about what may happen if the new County system pays off the transfer stations after three years and utilizes an option other than the City of Spokane's Waste-to-Energy facility. Specifically, the City believes a new West Plains transfer station is not necessary as there are alternatives (use of the existing transfer stations) and a new West Plains station would result in excessive additional costs for the entire system. In any case, the City of Spokane Valley does not believe that all system users should support the development of a West Plains transfer station. Mr.Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 3 RESPONSE: The County is responsible for providing a regional system. The rates will be comparable for all customers. For example, the County's agreement with the City of Spokane stipulates that the City of Spokane will continue to deliver historical flows to the Colbert Transfer Station, and will pay the same gate fees as any other customer,including the component that pays for the transfer stations. Similar to the way in which landfill closure costs are paid for by all rate payers, capital costs for new or existing transfer stations (including the Valley Transfer Station) will be paid for by all rate payers on a system wide basis, 5. The City desires to establish a governing body with authority to set rates, service levels, and other operational authority and control for the regional system, including local jurisdiction participation on such body. Other issues for consideration include possibly setting a rate ceiling, setting or removing the minimum load charge for self- haulers, and possible ownership issues. The City has remained consistent in regards to governance as it is critical to the City's commitment of representing our citizens through rate setting and cost control authority, RESPONSE: The approach described here is essentially the "Alliance"approach. This approach was unsuccessfully pursued several years ago. At this juncture,the County has decided to own and operate the regional system in a conventional fashion, in the same manner as other systems are set up throughout the state. The County does not agree that a separate governing body should be established. However, in the revised ILA, we have expanded and further clarified the role of Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAC). 6. The City requests a commitment from the County to always seek and obtain the lowest price option, with an opt-out available for the City if the County pursues higher priced options. If ownership is part of the agreement, the City would seek either bury-out or recovery of the City's portion towards the capital investment. The City also seeks dialog on recovery of operational and other enterprise fund reserves should the City withdraw at any time. RESPONSE: The County shares the City's desire to keep rates as low as possible. At this point in time, the County will retain ownership and risk for the entire regional system and joint ownership is not contemplated. 7. The City requests that if an intermodal facility or rail transloader is developed related to solid waste, it must have direct access at the same location to both Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rail lines in order to take advantage of competition for landfill disposal. Also, future competitive bids should not be restricted to a specific transport mode or specific intermodal system. System users should not directly fund the development of rail facilities. These facilities should be funded by the private sector or other public/private partnerships. RESPONSE: It is not contemplated that the Regional Solid Waste system will own or operate an intermodal facility. If private industry builds an intermodal facility, then private industry will determine its location. Mr.Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 4 8. The City desires a clear and transparent accounting of all aspects of operation, including any interfund transfers or other•comingling of County resources, revenues, or expenses. RESPONSE: Funds from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund will not be co-mingled with any other County funds. The ILA has been revised to provide: "COUNTY shall provide a statement of County Regional Solid Waste System income and expenses to the SWAC at the end of each fiscal year or on such other periodic basis as necessary for the SWAC to make a recommrtendation...u 9. The City requests the County to give consideration to local jurisdictions and their ability to provide certain services such as recycling or education in order to allow local jurisdictions more control over rates. RESPONSE: The Regional Solid Waste System will provide services on a regional basis. It is not in the best interests of the Regional Solid Waste System for the system to offer an "a la carte" approach from which member jurisdictions would choose various services/program(s). However, this is an example of a topic which could be brought before SWAC. 10. The City desires the gate rate to be reduced by the amount of the capital payment when the transfer stations are paid off. Specifically, the City desires that the interlocal agreement will clearly show a direct correlation between capital purchase payoff and rate reduction (e.g., if capital payment amount is equal to $11 per ton, upon pay off, the gate rate will be reduced by$11 per ton). RESPONSE: Clearly,once the transfer stations are paid for,the transfer station payment component will not be included in the calculation of the gate fees. However,the "cost of service" rate-setting approach will consider all anticipated capital costs and replacement costs for the regional solid waste system,as is typical. 11. The City desires to discuss the possibilities for ownership and equity in system facilities. The City would like clarification on what ownership, buy-in, and buyout would mean, how it could be accomplished, and how it would work for rate payers of various jurisdictions. Additionally, the City would like to understand how system control would be tied to ownership. RESPONSE: It has been determined that the County will own all regional solid waste system facilities. All funds and equipment of the regional solid waste system will be held in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The Solid Waste Enterprise Fund will not be co- mingled with any other County funds. Although the County hopes that all jurisdictions will initially join the regional solid waste system, in the event some do not, then an equitable buy-in will need to be negotiated with any jurisdictions that join later. • Mr.Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 5 12. The City desires to have strict limits on any rent, lease, or depreciation costs included for the period of the agreement, including limits on what may he imposed after the facilities are fully paid Additionally, the City desires to clearly ident(any equipment or facility replacement or maintenance funds that may be required throughout the term of the agreement.Finally, the City desires to idents how future capital costs, including any reserve funds, will be applied to the gate rates. RESPONSE: The ILA has been revised in Section C. 2 to provide for SWAC's recommendation(s) relative to financial matters regarding the County Regional Solid Waste System. 13. The City desires to see the final rates (or rate estimates)with(1) crll County, City and other local jurisdiction waste, and(2) all waste except for the City in order to understand the impact of the City joining the system. RESPONSE: There are numerous factors that affect gate fees. At this point in time,the County has not calculated gate fees for the various scenarios associated with participation in the regional solid waste system by certain jurisdictions. Some of the components of the gate fee can be adjusted by scaling back services on a geographical basis, and changing hours of operation for the transfer stations. 14. The City desires to have revenue sharing options included in the interlocal agreement, in the event there is ever a utility tax or revenue component.Additionally, the City desires clarification on how revenue sharing would work with any revenues distributed by the City of Spokane under the County's interlocal agreement with Spokane. RESPONSE: The County has added language to Section C. 3 of the ILA addressing this item. 15. As a participant of the regional system, each jurisdiction is required to adopt and enforce the County's flow control ordinance. The City desires that the County or system will enforce all flow control requirements. Another possibility may be for the system to pay for all flow control enforcement. RESPONSE: The County is not opposed to regional flow control enforcement. However the costs of regional flow control enforcement could have an effect on the gate fee. 16. The City must have the ability to submit an RFP prior to termination in the event that it desires to go with a non-system alternative. In that RFP, the City would contemplate siting of a new transfer station. The City would require that section C(I)(ii) be amended to allow this, RESPONSE: The County revised Section C: 1 of the ILA to address this concern. However, it should be noted that the siting of a transfer station is subject to the Essential Public Facilities siting process. Mr,Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 6 17. City will want to discuss mutual inderrin ication further depending on its involvement in and level of control and responsibility for system. If the City has no or little control over the system and rates, it should not be required to indemn the County. RESPONSE: The liability language in the ILA is self- limiting. That is to say, the City is only liable to the extent it negligently or intentionally performs or fails to perform any of its obligations under the ILA. 18. The City desires to get reports of City of Spokane Valley tonnage going forward. RESPONSE: The County is happy to provide this information to the extent that it is available. The tonnages may not be exact as collection routes do not necessarily conform to individual City corporate boundaries. 19. The City requests clarification on how the County envisions flow control working with the City of Spokane, especially if there are price differences and the Waste-to- Energy facility is cheaper than the system. Further, how much of the City of Spokane's waste goes to the transfer stations currently, and has the City of Spokane committed to continuing such deliveries? RESPONSE: The City of Spokane has mandatory garbage collection. The ILA between County and City of Spokane includes the following language address these concerns: G. Municipal Flow Control Interference: Both the CITY and the COUNTY recognize flow control to the Transfer Stations and to the City Waste To Energy Facility provides consistency to the CITY and the COUNTY and should not be intentionally disrupted by either the CITY or the COUNTY. The CITY and the COUNTY agree not to intentionally interfere with the other's attempt to meet all solid waste flow control requirements established within this Agreement. Specifically, neither party will intentionally interfere with Interlocal Agreements executed with other jurisdictions both within Spokane County and outside Spokane County during the term of this Agreement. The CITY and the COUNTY further agree to continue to cause the solid waste delivered to the Transfer Stations and to the Waste To Energy Facility respectively by the PARTIES to remain at historical volumes to the extent practicable through the term of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.) O. Gate Fees: For the purpose of transparency to the citizens of Spokane County, it is the intent of the CITY and the COUNTY to charge similar gate fees at the Transfer Stations and the Waste To Energy Facility Mr.Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 7 throughout the term of this Agreement; however, both PARTIES understand that this subsection is not binding on either Party. The PARTIES shall give each other at least sixty (60) calendar days advance written notice in the event either determines to charge a gate fee which is not similar to the gate fee of the other party. 20. The City desires clarification on how the County would make the required balloon payment in the event it opts-out at tete end of three years and what impact it would have on signatoly cities. RESPONSE: There are several options. One option would be for the County to sell bonds to make the balloon payment. Debt service on the bonds would then replace the monthly transfer station payment to the City of Spokane. Another option would be for the County to borrow money from the Spokane County Investment Pool. A third option might be a combination of the above options. Clearly the County would only be implementing one of these options if it would result a reduction in the gate fee. 21. The proposed interlocal agreement broadly defines solid waste to include materials such as industrial wastes, sewage sludge, abandoned vehicles, and contaminated soils. Will such materials be accepted at the transfer stations? RESPONSE: Although the items mentioned are identified as solid waste under the County Flow Control Ordinance, the transfer stations are not equipped to handle them, since they are not municipal solid waste. However, the SCCSWMP identifies where these types of solid wastes are properly handled. 22. The City intends to develop and adopt its own comprehensive solid waste management plan. RESPONSE: This is the first official communication wherein the City has notified the County that it intends to develop and adopt its own comprehensive solid waste management plan. Based on this information, the County is not intending to plan for the City in conjunction with preparing our Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Note that the County must move forward with the extensive preparations for the new system, including, among others, the negotiations for a comprehensive planning contract and an operations contract, selection of a consultant for a rate study, hiring of staff, and agreements for various services. The scope and costs of all these activities will be directly affected by the extent to which jurisdictions opt to join the regional. system. Therefore, in the interest of time and resources, we must require that all jurisdictions joining the system sign an ILA with the County by April 30, 2014. At this time, the • County has made no provision within its planning process to accommodate the addition of any other jurisdiction after April 30,2014. 23. The City desires information on the status of the legacy landfills, including projected costs for ongoing closure maintenance, projected rate impacts, and projected final closure date. Mr.Mike Jackson March 31,2014 Page 8 RESPONSE: Long term closure activities for the legacy landfills continue. The County's annual Operation & Maintenance (O&M) budget for our 3 legacy landfills is approximately $700K/year. Assuming the O&M was fully funded by the gate fees, the impact would be$5/Ton. It is difficult to predict a closure date for any of the sites due to the fact that the refuse remains buried on-site. Additionally,we are continuing to manage Iandfill gas, impacted groundwater, landfill cover systems and storm water. The County operates under the assumption that we will continue these activities for 20 years. Every 5 years EPA and Ecology perform a review of the remedial actions at each site and can adjust the site requirements. 24. The City requests a term of three years, although depending on County's agreement to implement cheaper alternatives at the three year opt-out, the City may be willing to discuss a possible longer terra. Further, the City desires ability to exit without mutual agreement by providing reasonable advance notice. The City would consider possible limits on when this might be allowed(e.g., at the three-year buy-out period). RESPONSE: The County has modified SECTION NO. 2 of the ILA to allow the City to terminate any time after November 16, 2017 without any penalty and without receiving any payment from the County. The City will be required to provide a 12-month notice prior to such termination. 25. The City desires to discuss equity issues if the City of Spokane desires to join the County system in the future. RESPONSE: The City of Spokane is a participant in the Regional System through their ILA with the County. By the end of April, the County must finalize the list of participating jurisdictions and move forward, in order to stay on schedule with the development of the new system. We understand that the City of Spokane Valley has hired a planning consultant to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan. However, we intend to meet Ecology's time frame and cannot delay. At this time, the County has made no provision within its planning process to accommodate the addition of any other jurisdiction after April 30,2014. Please review the changes that the County has made to the ILA. We encourage the City of Spokane Valley to execute the document by the end of April. We would welcome the City's participation in the Regional Solid Waste System. Sincerely, */ .L.0-)L----.01mr .A4 1,4 Al Fren iy hair -11+d Mielke,Vice-Chair l q'Quing,Commissioner 110 Enclosures(2)