2013, 02-06 Special Jt Mtg MINUTES
Special Joint Meeting
Spokane County Board of County Commissioners
Spokane Valley City Council
Wednesday, February 6,2013
9:00 a.m.—11:00 a.m.
Spokane County Risk Management Office Conference Room
1033 West Gardner Avenue, Spokane,Wa
Attendance:
City of Spokane Valley Spokane County
Tom Towey,Mayor Shelly O'Quin n, Chair
Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Al French,Vice-Chair
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Todd Mielke, Commissioner
Ben Wick, Councilmember..
Arne Woodard,Councilmember
Absent:
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Rod Higgins,Councilmember
Staff: Spokane County Staff
Mike Jackson, City Manager Marshall Parnell, Chief Executive Officer
Eric Guth, Public Works Director Jim Emacio, DPA,Prosecutor's Office
Cary Driskell,City Attorney Ken Gimpel, Spokane Regional Solid Waste
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Bill Wedlake, Spokane Regional Solid Waste
Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst
Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Others in Attendance:
Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Jim Wavada,Environmental Planner,DOE
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Wayne Krafft,DOE Regional Section Mgr
Steve Salvatori, Spokane Council Member
Doug Nixon, Cheney Councilmember
Larry Condon,PacifieClean Environmental
Steve Wolf, Sunshine Disposal Recycling
After self-introductions Jim Wavada, Environmental Planner with the Department of Ecology (DOE),
gave the following presentation concerning Solid Waste:
Mr. Wavada explained that we must be in compliance with state regulations for various options for future
purposes concerning solid waste, and that today he will present an analysis of the options and the next
steps. He said that as of midnight,November 16, 2014, the current plan will no longer be valid, and that
the only option is to extend the agreement and keep the inter•local intact. RCW 70.95.010(6)(c) states that
it is the responsibility of"county and city governments to assume primary responsibility for solid waste
management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source
separation strategies."This means, he said, that each county, in cooperation with the cities, is required to
prepare and coordinate a comprehensive solid waste management plan, and that according to RCW
70.95.08(1)(a-e), as of June 2010, plans must include a plan for handling methods for recyclable
materials, including organics. Mr. Wavada said the Department of Ecology realizes this could take longer
than November 2014, and a short-term fix would be to request DOE for a "Letter of Currency" which
Joint Spokane County/Spokane Valley Meeting Minutes 02-36-2013 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 02-19-2013
would validate the permit and the municipalities would be approved to spend CPG (Coordinated
Prevention Grant)funds.
According to RCW 70.95.080(3), cities have three solid waste planning options:
1. Prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it [municipality] is located, its plan for
its own solid waste management for integration into the county plan, The caveat is, to qualify for state
financial assistance with planning costs, [RCW 70.95,130] "Any city preparing an independent plan shall
provide for disposal sites wholly [emphasis added] within its jurisdiction." Mr. Wavada said most
municipalities do not choose this option because the disposal site isn't within its jurisdiction,therefore the
municipality would not be eligible for CPU grants nor qualify for State finding.
2. 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, Mr. Wavada said this is the option most cities choose and
he suggested entering into two interlocals: one to authorize the plan, and the second to explain the details;
and when ready,jurisdictionslmunicipalities adopt the plan by a"Resolution of Adoption,"
3. Authorize the County to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the
comprehensive county plan.
Mr. Wavada said that regardless of the options, the State statutes require that all solid waste plans contain
a detailed list of plan elements and cover both short-term(5 years); and long-term (20)years. He said we
are already at the five-year period. Mr. Wavada then gave some information comparing the options: that
for option 1, Spokane County would be the lead planning and implementation authority for the
countywide solid waste management. He said a new solid waste plan could cost bePveen $80,000 and
$150,000; new transfer stations between $1 million and $2 million, assuming you built your own; and
new household hazardous waste facilities about $100,000 each. Option 2 includes a tell-year waste
disposal contract for flow control, and planning requirements and responsibility remains with the County
as lead, and cities select one of three options; that staffing and program operational costs may be shared
based on which planning options the City of Spokane selects, and upon subsequent interlocal agreements;
and said with this option, capital investment would be much smaller than with Option 1. Option 3 is the
status quo for all planning functions; it keeps operational responsibility for everything except perhaps
disposal, with the City of Spokane via an interlocal agreement, and it doesn't affect statutory
responsibility for planning,just the approach to getting it done. In summary, Mr. Wavada said under any
option, the County is responsible for writing a new comprehensive plan, and each jurisdiction must
choose which way it will go to meet its obligation to participate; he also stated that the third option in
terms of development, could be just as complicated as any of the other two; but that in terms of
implementation, option 3 would be the lowest cost and the easiest to implement concerning legal
agreements as there would be a single plan with one entity (the County) responsible for that plan's
implementation; and that the jurisdictions would sign in via a resolution of adoption.
Discussion and questions ensued concerning various aspects of the plan, and of solid waste in general. A
concern was raised about the education aspect in the plan, and Mr. Wavada said we must address an
education plan that meets the plan's expectations and with educating consumers,and said there are always
options to consider when it comes to recycling. Commissioner French said he is aware of three agencies
that work with recycling education; and suggested the [Washington State Department of Ecology] 1-800-
recycle (1-800-732-9253) number as an aid, adding that it could be the element or education portion of a
plan. Someone asked if a "blended plan" would be allowable where part could be sent to an incinerator
and part to long-haul which would allow for adjustments in the volumes based on market conditions, and
Mr. Wavada said that would be permissible. Someone stated that recycling varies as one week glass
might be marketable, and the next not, so flexibility needs to be included in a Plan.
Joint Spokane County/Spokane Valley Meeting Minutes 02-06-2013 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council:02-19-2013
In response to a question from Commissioner O'Quitm concerning next steps. Commissioner French
said that they have authorized for the issue of the RFQ (request for qualifications)to select a consultant to
select the site selection process for trans-loaders; he said they also issued an RFQ for consultant help in
reviewing the analysis between long-haul and incineration; he said those have been released and the due
date for those coming back is the end of the month, after which they'll select a contactor and move
forward to conduct that study; he said that at meetings between Spokane Valley, the County and the City
of Spokane regarding the idea of whether there is an opportunity to acquire from the City of Spokane,the
existing transfer stations in exchange for some kind of flow-control and seine kind of volume that would
go to the City; and he said those conversations will continue while we wait for the response to the RFQ.
Commissioner O'Quinn commented about the option of looking at a public governmental nonprofit
model; said she would compare such a model to the Spokane Regional Health District model; that it
seems too often in these cases that the personalities or the politics of the different jurisdictions get in the
way of the ability to act regionally as a community; and as in the Health District example, you take that
factor out, and she asked how much, if at all, has that been discussed. Commissioner French said after
conversations on that topic for two years, that that idea has been pretty much "beat to death;" that the
majority of the jurisdictions reject that as an option; what they heard was that ultimately, jurisdictions
were not happy with the goverrunent structure, or the voting structure; that some larger cities didn't like
giving away that much power to include small cities; he said the interlocal was sent out to the
jurisdictions asking that the document be signed, but no one returned a signed interlocal; he said they
want accountability;they want to have control over the way the decisions are made and the only way that
will happen is with the Board of County Commissioners he said there was a full year of conversation
about governance and most feel more comfortable with the County doing it.
Spokane Valley City Manager Jackson said he feels that is an accurate statement; adding that when we all
met to discuss the next steps, it was decided by all that more information is needed; that part of the
difficulty with the governing structure was they didn't know about landfill closures or potential capital
costs to the City, and he said it could actually cost more for some cities if they entered into the agreement,
so at that time,it was decided to move forward with the RFQ to get the information that everyone felt was
needed; he said that last June unfortunately we didn't get any responses to the RFQ; and said we hope we
get some good responses to the current RFQ; how much new information we'll learn is speculative he
said; but we all need the information on the costs and the options for long haul or to continue for five to
ten years with the existing system and then ultimately have the transfer station transferred either to the
City and the County jointly, or the City of Spokane Valley or however those details get worked out. He
said part of the RFQ includes options concerning the question of what do we do if we get to November
16,2014 and don't have everything in place,and said the candid discussion has been: "we'll find a way to
make this work." Further discussion included mention that the change in the leadership of the City
changed the dynamic of this topic whereby the City has decided they would be a stand-alone contractor as
opposed to a previous inclination to be part of the alliance; but now that there is a clear understanding of
what the City of Spokane will do with their incinerator, it allows the other jurisdictions to plan
accordingly.
Spokane City Council Member Salvatori said in speaking for one of the city council, he thinks it is a
shared goal for waste-to-energy plans, to have it be a viable economic alternative to long-haul; and said
the days of a $105 tipping fee are over; that ways have to be found where entities will choose to do
business with it;that if people want a choice of what to do with garbage, "we need to burn" as if we don't
burn ,you don't have a choice as everyone would be long-hauling;and he said they are trying to bring the
operating costs of that plant down so that they can be a vendor of choice on disposal methods. Regarding
the transfer stations, he said his understanding is if you go the route of building new ones, he's pretty
sure a transfer station has to go through the Essential Public Facility process, which he explained is an
extensive process especially when cn a deadline or even on an extended deadline; and said just speaking
Joint Spokane County/Spokane Valley Meeting Minutes 02-06-2013 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 02-19-2013
for himself, he wants what brings us the lowest, most efficient rates for everyone; he said his opinion is
that "you guys can collectively run those transfer stations better than we can, and you can drive costs out
of that transfer station that we could never do'and he expressed hope to find some way without having
to go to bond or anything else,to just do"x"number of years of flow control, get the transfer stations, we
all have to work together on the plan; and said there's obviously over-lap on recycling and household
hazardous materials; and said he hopes we all look at making this as simple and as efficient as possible.
Council Member Salvatori said he thinks a nonprofit municipal corporation is just another layer and not
something that would produce anything of value, and said that it is incumbent upon us to have a
competitive alternative to long-haul.
Other discussion involved the idea of regional or individually awned transfer stations, or sending
everything to the waste-to-energy plant; and Commissioner O'Quinn asked if the City could contract out
for these services and Mr.Wavada said no,that they could not take a job away from the union and turn it
over to the private sector. Commissioner Mielke commented that he feels that none of these different
elements are mandatorily tied together; that he doesn't see where the ultimate disposal decision is tied to
the transfer stations; that in just looking at the transfer station piece, there are three options: one — go
through the essential public facility process—we find a location—we build; or two—there's a purchase
price offered by the City of Spokane and the price is with consideration of a flow control; and three-just
the outright cost or asking price for purchase with no mandatory linkage between the flow control;he said
he knows there is an appraisal out there and it is being reviewed; said he's trying to queue up each of
those three options up so he can do a financial comparison, to purchase with consideration, purchase
without consideration, or a different consideration, but that he's not able to run those numbers until he has
those figures from the City of Spokane on the outright purchase.
Spokane City Council Member Salvatori commented that he doesn't think anyone here has an outcome
that they are bound to as everyone seeks what is best for their constituents, understanding that each
jurisdiction's constituents has different needs; that if their needs and a regional need makes sense, then
good; and if they don't, then that is what he likes about option three as each jurisdiction will have the
ability to develop their own plan; he said at the time of last year's summit, the County's position was that
they want this to be regional and were willing to turn over all governance to a separately appointed
independent body that the County had no control over; he said the starting conversation was everyone
wanted to be part of the governance, but that wasn't where the conversation ended. Mr. Salvatori said he
doesn't think the Board's position has changed from where it was two years ago, and said he is still open
to all options until all the necessary information has been obtained to make a decision. Commissioner
Mielke replied that while it is important to recognize differences of constituents and their expectations,he
is also hopeful as elected officials they will look for the commonality as well.
Mr. Gimpel said it appears they have even moved this just to two options: the transfer of the assets, the
transfer stations, in return for a disposal agreement for a period of time; or a cashed-out option to acquire
those facilities; that the more tons there are, the more leverage and options there will be in pricing
models; he said there's about 150,000 tons in the county, and about 150,000 that come to the waste-to-
energy plant direct, and if we keep those tons together, as a region it will give us better leverage with
whatever option is chosen. Commissioner Mielke said he understands the issue of volume, but that he
also understands the idea of trying to diversify risks; which he said, is the balancing act; he said if he
signs a long-term contract, he'd be at its whim for the period of that contract; he said he hopes no one
takes this as directed at personalities, but in looking at the objectives, he wants the most cost effective,
responsible way of disposing solid waste; that under the previous discussions where the projections were
$142, at that point the County was saying "I'm not sure we're meeting our objective; we think there are
other responsible ways of getting rid of solid waste at a lower cost." He said the concern he has with
dedicating every bit of their flow to a long-haul option is that he has no idea what fuel prices will do over
an extended period of time; and if he signs a long-term agreement on that,then he may be at the whim of
Joint Spokane County/Spokane Valley Meeting Minutes 02-06-2013 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 02-19-2013
fuel prices. City Councilmeniber Grafos stated if Spokane is going to be a contractor,they need to tell us;
give us a five-year horizon for the other municipalities to decide on an option; he said they can't come
back and say we need a thirty-year contract; that if they can run that plant and they can be a contractor,
then give us a number for five years; but whatever system is decided upon, we should have the option of
changing and going out to the market every five years. Commissioner French said he feels the City is
giving us a target,or a soft number of$65 a ton for just disposal subject to their calculations they are still
working on; and that is more than what we had a few months ago. Council Member Salvatori said that
one way to help mitigate that is to shorten the duration, not thirty or twenty years, but maybe ten years or
less; that from the City's standpoint, he hopes we are talking ten because we can transfer title to the
transfer stations with ten years of flow at zero costs; in round numbers, he said he is not designated to
negotiate,but in round numbers,you can end up with the transfer stations with no cash if we had ten years
of flow, and that could be subject to other negotiations; that we'll have a better operation of a waste-to-
energy plant if there are choices of where to put your trash; and said the best way for me to bring value to
my voters in the city, is to make us have to compete to keep your business; he said we should work
together on planning, you run the transfer stations; we need to be competitive, and said he'd hate to see a
bond issue required to go buy a transfer station when we'll give them to you. Mr. Gimpel said that the
Board of County Commissioners just approved the tip fee reduction proposal rolling back the cost to S9
per ton starting May 1 if the City Council approves it next Monday night for final reading; therefore for
the next two years that rate will simply be adjusted by a CPI (consumer price index) so there won't be an
unknown for the short term.
Appreciation was extended to everyone for attending today's meeting.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1 0:3 5 a.m.
AT S ' J°�' �p
Thomas E.Towey,Mayor
� /
Christine Bainbridg-, ity Clerk
V„......______
-
Joint Spokane County/Spokane Valley Meeting Minutes 02-06-2013 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: 02-19-2013
2/6/2013
What's next for Spokane?
After Nov. 17, 2014,there
is no Spokane Regional
Solid Waste System.
•
The solid waste plan wilt no
longer he valid.
Jim 41Favade
❑eaartrt.ent of Eco,ogy
Eas!ern Regional Office
Spokane(5O)320.3545
fames wavada ea ecy.wa,c of
•
. Inaction is not an option for
•
any of us:
• RON 70.95.010(6) (b) : "It is the
responsibility of state,county and city
governments to provide for a waste
management infrastructure to fully
implement waste reduction and source
separation strategies and to process _
and dispose of remaining wastes In a
manner that is environmentally safe
and economically sound."
•
•
...and the law gets more specific
RCW 70.95.010 (6)(c): It is the
responsibility of county and city
governments to assume primary _
•
responsibility for solid waste
management and to develop and
implement aggressive and _
effective waste reduction and
source separation strategies_
•
•
• 1
2/6/2013
•
So what does that mean for you?
• RCW 70.95.080 requires each county, in
cooperation with the cities within that
county tb prepare a coordinated and
comprehensive solid waste management
plan,
Acsordhg to subsections(1);a—e),as of June
2010,pens must inc'ude a plan for hand.'ng
meL ode for recyc!abfe materials,including
er5an'cs-
Options for municipalities,
• According to RCW 70.95..080,(3):
Cities have three solid waste
planning options.
•
Options for municipalities cont.
•
RCW 70.95.080(3),
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;
•
`Hov.eve,to qualfy'or stale fnan;:al
ass-stancewti p'ann1ng costs,acocrd'ngIo
RCW 70.95.130:'Any city preparing an
Independent pion shall prcv'de for d sposa'sites
r.toyo'iIh1115 int5d1c9on.'
2
2/6/2013
Options for municipalities cont.
• RCW 70,95.080(3),
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
Options for municipalities cont.
RCW 70.95.080(3), • _
c) "Authorize the county to prepare a plan
for the city's solid waste management for
inclusion in the comprehensive county
plan.
....and regardless of the options
RCW 70.95.090 requires all solid waste plans
to contain a detailed list of plan elements
and cover both short-term (5 years); and
long-term (20 years) horizons. The RCW •
lists these required elements.
3
2/6/2013
Your proposed governance options
• How do they compare in terms of regulatory
compliance?
• How might each option limit or expand your
control over solid waste, recycling and
associated costs?
•
•
•
Option 1
Spokane County becomes the lead
,planning and implementation authority for
•
countywide solid waste management.
✓New solid waste plan, ($80,000—150,000)
✓New transfer stations. ($1-2 million)
✓New HHW facilities($100,000
each?)
✓Recycling collection
. ✓Recycling and waste reduction
education programs
Option 2
10-year waste disposal contract(flow control)
/Planning requirements and responsibility
remains with county as lead and cities selecting
one of three options.
✓Staffing and program operational costs may be
shared,based on which planning option city of
Spokane selects, and suhsequent
interlace!agreements,
✓Captial investment much smaller
than Option 1.
4
2/6/2013
•
Option 3
•
Status quo for all planning functions.
(Presumably no flow control to WTE?)
•
✓Keeps operational responsibility for
everything (but disposal?)with City of
Spokane via interlocal agreement. - - - -
-
I Doesn't affect statutory
responsibility for planning,just -- -----
the approach to getting it done.
Summary
• Under any option, the county is
responsible for writing•a new
comprehensive plan.
• Under any option, each city has to
choose which way it will go to meet its
obligation to participate per
RCW 70.95.080(3)
Questions? •
You can also contact me at:
jwav461 Caecy.wa.gov, or
509-329-3545.
Jim Wavada
Environmental Planner
Waste 2 Resources Program
Department or Ecology
Eastern Regional Office-Spokane — —
5