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)