2013, 08-28 Special Regional Solid Waste MINUTES
Special Regional Solid Waste Meeting
Spokane County Board of County Commissioners
Spokane Valley City Council, et al
Wednesday,August 28,2013
8:30 a.m.—11:30 a.m.
CenterPlace Regional Event Center
2426 N Discovery Road, Spokane Valley, Washington
Attendance:
Spokane County Spokane Valley
Spokane County Commission Chair Shelly O'Quinn Mayor Tom Towey
Spokane County Commissioner Al French, Vice-Chair Deputy Mayor Gary Schimmels
Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke Camel member Dean Grafos
Councihnember Chuck Haf rer
Other Elected Officials Councihnember Rod Higgins
Liberty Lake Mayor Steve Peterson Councihnember Arne Woodard
Cheney Mayor Tom Trulove Councihnember Ben Wick
Marshall Farnell Spokane County Chief Executive Officer Mike Jackson, City Manager
Ken Gimpel, Spokane Regional Solid Waste Eric Guth,Public Works Director
Bruce Rawls, Spokane Co.Division of Utilities(retired) Mark Calhoun,Finance Director
Steve Wamback, Pierce County Res. Div.Administrator Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Jim Wavada,Environmental Planner,DOE Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Admin.Analyst
Bob Rella,HDR Engineering,Inc. Michelle Rasmussen,Admin Assistant
Lori Calub,HDR Engineering,Inc. Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist
Carolbelle Branch,Public Info. Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approximately 60 people in the audience, including staff members from various municipalities.
At approximately 8:37 a.m. Steve Wamback, Pierce County Sustainable Resources Division
Administrator and this meeting's facilitator, acknowledged a quorum of Spokane County Commissioners
and Spokane Valley Couneilmembers. Commission Chair O'Quinn called the meeting to order on behalf
of the County Commissioners, followed by Mayor Towey calling the meeting to order on behalf of
Spokane Valley Council.
1, Welcome and Introduction—Al French. Spokane County Commissioner
Commissioner French welcomed everyone and gave a short overview of the history of solid waste
handing; he referenced the HDR report and the objectives, and said he feels comfortable using the data as
a basis for making a decision for the Board of County Commissioners by the end of September.
Commissioner French then gave a brief biography of and introduced Steve Wamback, Pierce County
Sustainable Resources Division Administrator and this meeting's facilitator.
2. History and Overview Steve Wamback
After going over the agenda for today's meeting,Mr. Wamback explained,with the aid of a PowerPoint,
the statutory solid waste requirements of RCW 70.95 and 70.105 as well as RCW 35 for cities and
counties; that according to RCW 70.95 and the topic of solid waste planning, the Plan must contain
required elements (solid waste management/disposal and infrastructure, recycling, waste reduction and
recycling education); said regarding the fundamental requirements for a solid waste system, that the
Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 09-17-2013
County must have a Plan,while cities and towns have options. Mr. Wamback gave some history of solid
waste; said that in 1985 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) modified the rules for landfill
design and management systems and as a result, Spokane County and Spokane City had to close five
landfills that served the region. Regarding the Waste-to-Energy Facility, he explained that facility was
financially challenging to fund so they formed a Regional Solid Waste System Interlocal Agreement with
the County and the City and with every municipality within the County; that per that Interlocal, the
facilities were owned by the City of Spokane; and he mentioned that approximately 300,000 tons per year
were processed through the three facilities. Mr. Wamback said the Interlocal terminates November 16,
2014 as well as all the contracts associated with the system; he said staffs from the City of Spokane,
Spokane County, and the City of Spokane Valley are working together exploring options, and that the
three entities have agreed to fund a study, and that HDR Engineering was selected to undertake the study,
3. Presentation: Evaluation of Costs for Regional Solid Waste Management Options — Bob Rella, P.E.,
HDR Engineering,Inc.
Mr. Rella introduced his associate, Lori Calub,who he explained,worked with the financials of the study.
He said the purpose of the study was to investigate and elaborate on the alternatives. He said the existing
transfer stations are the Colbert (North) Transfer Station, the Valley Transfer Station, and the Transfer
operations at the Waste-to-Energy Plant (WTE); and said all three stations initiated operations in 1991;
said the transfer operation at the WTE requires significant staffing and is staffed ten hours a day, seven
days a week and said although twenty-two years old, they are all in very good condition for their age. Mr.
Rella explained that they reviewed the operations and maintenance requirements for transfer of ownership
or replacement or new facilities, and have developed staffing and equipment requirements based on their
experience with similar facilities. Mr. Rella said they studied the tonnage rates and found that the total
annual municipal solid waste tonnage is 300,000 tons,with about 46,000 tons coining through the Colbert
station, 91,000 tons thru the Valley station, and 141,000 tons at the City of Spokane.
Mr. Rella then explained the nine options; said the team had two approaches: one technical, and the other
financial; that the technical approach includes sizing calculations and conceptual arrangements and
conditions, while the financial aspects deals with cost. He spoke of the cost centers and options, such as
purchasing the Colbert and Valley stations, or replacing them, or having a new West Plains transfer
station; and said that the cost center total cost or gate fee was calculated by adding the transfer station
plus haul and disposal. He explained that the options for disposal cost centers included trucking to the
WTE, trucking to a landfill, rail (BNSF) to a landfill, or rail (proposed Geiger Spur) to a landfill. Mr.
Rella then explained the nine options,which he said used 2018 dollars:
1. Option 1 A- purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations,truck to WTE at$113-$146 a ton.
The City of Spokane operates the transfer station at the WTE, and a disposal fee would range
from$65-$98 a ton.
2. Option 1B — purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations and the West Plains station and
truck to Iandfill at $147 a ton; this includes contracting truck long haul to regional landfill with
disposal.
3. Option 1C—purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations, the West County customers would
use the WTE; at $133 a ton; the City of Spokane would operate the transfer station at the WTE,
and includes contracting truck long haul to a regional landfill with disposal.
4. Option 1D — purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations, rail (proposed Geiger spur) to a
landfill, and West County customers would use the WTE; at $124 a ton; the City of Spokane
would operate the transfer station at the WTE.
5. Option 2 —purchase the Colbert and Valley transfer stations for a minimal fee, contract with
those stations for operations and haul to WTE at $107 a ton; the City of Spokane operates the
station at the WTE for West County customers, and the WTE disposal fee would be $65 a ton
for long-term multi-year contract.
Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 09-17-2013
6. Option 3A — purchase Colbert and Valley transfer stations and develop the West Plains
station,plus rail (BNSF)to a landfill at$117 a ton.
7. Option 3B — purchase the Colbert and Valley transfer stations, develop the West Plains
stations, use rail (proposed Geiger Spur) to a landfill at $135 a ton; and contract for transfer
station operations.
8. Option 4A — replace Colbert and Valley transfer stations, develop the West Plains station,
contract truck long haul to a regional landfill, at$155 a ton.
9. Option 4B--replace the Colbert and Valley transfer stations, develop the West Plains station,
contract haul operations to a regional landfill,at$128 a ton.
Mr. Rella also showed a graphical representation of gate fee projections of ten years, said the fees shown
do not include the 3.6% Washington Refuse Tax, that all options include any capital development and
show lower gate fees until the actual capital is recognized, specifically in Options 1B, 1D, 3A, 3B, 4A,
and 4B; and said the interim operations also reflect disposal at the WTE at$98 a ton.
4. Elected Officials Questions on Technical Evaluation
A question arose concerning the factor used in the projections,and Ms, Calub explained that among other
factors,they used the contract operations plus 10% general administration, plus 10% overhead and profit;
said the figures also depend on a competitive price bidding and which landfills would be used; she said
the market gate route could be lower; that there is some variability in calculating the rail haul, and Mr.
Rella added that the transfer stations are in good condition and are well maintained, and he anticipated
they could last twenty years or more. There were other brief clarifying questions from elected officials.
5. Comments by Staff—Bruce Rawls, Mike Jackson,Ken Gimpel
Mr, Rawls commented that about two and one-half years ago, a large regional, two-day summit was held
concerning some of the many aspects of solid waste, such as governance; said it included a balanced
representation of those who use the system,which he said, must be cost effective. He said there were two
main objectives that arose from that meeting: that the cost study indicated we probably won't save
money, and that the City of Spokane is no longer interested in being the leader of solid waste or in
operating two transfer stations;that a plan is needed prior to November 2014 including a new governance
structure. He said the cost study done was a good study and he just received the final report, which he
said will be posted on the Spokane County website soon, under "utilities." Mr. Rawls said Option 2
appears to be more cost effective; the said this is not a prediction of actual gate fees but is a study meant to
do a comparison and provide for an orderly transition; he said building a new facility is about twice as
expensive as purchasing the current ones; and that Option 2 also retains cohesiveness of the system. He
said the County will have to hire staff to manage this,will have to have a planning document and draft an
RFP (request for proposals) all within fourteen weeks, so he said there is a huge amount of work to do.
Mr. Rawls also said the County intends to have the Geiger Spur in the future and that there may be a
hybrid of alternatives to have the West Plains facility long range as well. He said we need a decision on
which approach(option)by the end of September.
Spokane Valley City Manager Jackson said he concurs with Mr. Rawls in that this is an outstanding
study; that they had to limit the number of variables, and that time is a constraint. He said Spokane City
wants to divest itself of transfer stations, and one topic of immediate discussion is about ownership of
these facilities, and the objective is to work regionally as much as possible, Mr. Jackson said Option 2 is
worthy of strong consideration,but he would look hard at Option 3A; that if we go out to bid we may get
different costs; he said this study has brought us much closer to a decision point and we need to move
forward. Mr. Jackson noted that there will be a meeting next week with the Spokane Valley Council and
the County Board of Commissioners, and that he hopes to come up with a long-term decision; and said he
would like to reach a permanent decision.
Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 09-17-2013
Ken Gimpel said he feels the study is one of the best, and he offered his compliments to the HDR Team.
Mr. Gimpel said Spokane City supports Option 2 as it addresses the impact to customers who use the
facilities; said Option 2 also addresses the needed change in governance and said he believes in the
County as the overseer and that it gives the people in the County the option to vote on these matters. Mr.
Gimpel also stated that Option 2 has many reasons for the way the system has run; said the City of
Spokane hasn't had partners in the County and others and that transition process will be huge; said the
City of Spokane strongly supports Option 2. Mr. Gimpel also noted that this year will see the volume of
waste increased as more people spending means more waste; that there is a need for the West Plains
transfer station; and that this could be the manner for the County to serve those constituents.
In response to a question someone in the audience had asked earlier about why there are not more options,
Mr•. Rawls said they had to define a scope and budget;that they held a brainstorming session last June and
more alternatives could have been considered if they wanted, but feel these alternatives or options have
identified the concerns; he said a separate service for the West Plains was included as perhaps a long-
term option, Mr. Gimpel noted that the Waste-to-Energy plant would be totally contractual and would be
no different from a disposal contract; that the City would act as vendor; that the tipping fee would be
fixed and adjusted on a CPI (Consumer Price Index) escalator with a 1.54% increase for a fixed rate in
2014.
6, Solid Waste ComRrehensive Plan Considerations—Jim Wavada,Department of Ecology
Mr. Wavada explained that the job of the Department of Ecology(DOE) is whether or not to recommend
approval of the Plan, and to help the entities get through the Plan;that the urgency has nothing to do with
the options, only with the change in the management structure; said there will be a new system, and a
requirement is to review the Plan every five years; that state law dictates having a public hearing for the
citizens and to serve and protect the environment; that it is "all about the level of service" and the need to
put an interlocal together fairly quickly. Commissioner French asked about grant money to help with the
plan and Mr.Wavada said grants can be made to Counties, based on population, for handling solid waste
within its jurisdictions; and said it usually doesn't make economic sense to issue grants to cities, but said
the County can apply, Mr. Gimpel said during the 2013-2015 grant cycle, they have identified about
$250,000 to be used for plan updates, and said they will have Spokane City's expertise to help with the
plan; and that Option 2 is a minimal plan. Commissioner French also asked about the possibility of
extending the deadline, and Mr. Wavada explained that in the "short turn around" they will need
resolutions of adoptions, public hearings, etc. and the longest time is 120 days, so it is important to get
started; that if it can be shown to the DOE that progress has been made, such as issuing an RFP and
interlocals or other pieces of evidence for them to issue a Letter of Concurrency, then the DOE could
consider the existing plan current until a new plan is finished.
7. Discussion by Elected Officials Regarding the Regional Solid Waste Management Options -
Facilitated by Steve Wamback
In response to a question concerning additional public meetings, Mr. Rawls said there could be another
summit for the general population to participate, or maybe the Board of County Commissioners could
hold a hearing to give citizens opportunity for their input. Commissioner French said the Board of
County Commissioners and the Spokane Valley Council are going to hold a joint meeting next
Wednesday to try to come to consensus about moving forward; and said the Commissioners' goal is to
have a final decision by the end of September; adding that the Commissioners have not discussed holding
a public hearing. Commission Chair O'Quinn said no public hearing has been scheduled. Commissioner
Mielke mentioned the long-term impact and that the end of September is coming quickly; he suggested
perhaps letting the public know they are invited to attend, and such a meeting could be a "trigger"to put
together a public hearing. Mayor Trulove said he only just received the report and has not had an
opportunity to study the report. Liberty Lake Mayor Peterson said they support option 2 as the most
viable option; while Spokane Valley Councilmember Wick said we could still accomplish a regional
Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 09-17-2013
system if Spokane Valley owns the Valley transfer stations and said Option 3A would allow us to treat
the situation more as a vendor. Commissioner Mielke said that they are all charged to provide service and
that they need to try to maintain some consistency; that they are trying to have this as efficient as
possible; that the question of the West Plains transfer station includes the City of Spokane or not or
whether they are a partner or not is important; but the important decision is they need to push forward
cooperatively; and said he understands Spokane Valley's interest in the transfer station in Spokane
Valley,which is used by several jurisdictions.
Commission Chair O'Quinn said they need to look regionally and maintain a regional system; she
suggested the WTE plant stay under the ownership of the City and Mr. Gimpel concurred; and said the
WTE plant could act as a transfer station, but the City of Spokane keeps ownerships. Cheney Mayor
Trulove said his citizens don't use the transfer station as they dump directly to the WTE Plant; said his
city does its own recycling and has always done its own recycling, but feels they are being overcharged
for what they are getting. Mr. Gimpel said he agrees a regional system is subsidized, but it provides a
service. Mr.Wavada said for a plan to be valid, it must deliver services and has to be for all citizens.
8. The Way Forward:Next Steps—Al French, Spokane County Commissioner
Commissioner French extended thanks to everyone for participating and coming today; and again
mentioned the joint study session meeting next week with the Spokane Valley Council; he said the reason
they are meeting is because they are the two largest users; and he added if the Board of County
Commissioners later decides to hold a public hearing, it will of course,be duly noticed.
Commissioner O'Quinn,followed by Mayor Towey, each adjourned the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:56 a.m.
•
T • ras E. Toti y1\4ayor
A _
uistine Bainbridge, " ity Clerk
Regional Solid Waste Meeting 08-28-2013 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council:09-17-2013