Loading...
2013, 09-04 Joint w/BOCC MINUTE S JOINT MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL AND SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 4,2013 11:00 a.m.—2:30 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Attendance: Spokane Valley Spokane County Tom Towey, Mayor Shelly O'Quinn, Commission Chair Dean Grafos, Councilmember Al French, Commission Vice-Chair Chuck Haf rer, Councilmen:bar Todd Mielke, Commissioner Rod Higgins, Councilmenrber Ben Wick, Councilmember Staff. Marshall Falwell, County CEO Absent: Jim Emacio, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Kevin Cooke, County Utilities Director Arne Woodard, Councihnember Bill Wedlake, Regional Solid Waste Coordinator Bob Wrigley, Spokane County CBO Staff: John Dickson, Spokane County, COO Mike Jackson, City Manager Ken Gimpel,Regional Solid Waste Sys. Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Others in Attendance Eric Guth, Public Works Director Tami Yager, Waste Management Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Assistant Mark Torre, Sunshine Disposal&Recycling Michelle Rasmussen,Admin.Assistant Steven Wulf, Sunshine Disposal&Recycling Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Doug Nixon, City Council, Cheney Matthew Pederson, Republic Services Ed Pace, Citizen Nina Culver, Spokesman Review At 11:00 a.m.,Mayor Towey announced that the County Commissioners would be about 15 minutes late. At approximately 11:15 a.m., Mayor Towey called the meeting to order, followed by Commission Chair O'Quinn calling the meeting to order as well. It was moved by Councilmember Haf rer, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels and Councilmember Woodard from today's meeting. Mayor Towey welcomed everyone to the meeting, said there will be a brief intermission at noon and elected officials and staff are invited to participate in lunch. Mayor Towey referenced the UDR Report and said that his hope coming out of this meeting will be that Spokane Valley officials and Spokane County Commissioners will have a clear understanding of the priorities, and explained that we want to work in conjunction with the County to make that happen; and said he would like to know the County's expectations and priorities for today's meeting, recognizing that theirs might be different. City Manager Jackson asked the Commissioners if they have other expectations for today's meeting, and that he also hopes to reach some understanding from today's meeting. Commission Chair O'Quinn said the County Commissioners will not be making a decision today as they have scheduled a public hearing for October Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council:09-17-2013 8; that they will consider today as part of that process; and that they would like to hear Spokane Valley's thoughts and decisions. City Manager Jackson gave some of the history behind this issue; explained that the County and City staffs worked together on the scope of work with a hopeful response deadline of the end of 2012, but that there were no responses to that RFP(request for proposal);that there were also changes in administrations and staff which lead them to reconsider the process, and have this study completed; he said the information contained in the study is good and there is enough data to formulate the basis of a decision; said there was some discussion last week about a couple different options that different team members selected, and it appears there is a split in opinions between Option 2, and Option 3A; said perhaps together we could come up with other ideas. Concerning Option 2, Mr. Jackson said this means continuing to send waste to the waste-to-energy plant(WTE) for an undetermined amount of time, about seven to ten years at $65 a ton, and at the end of that time, the County would own the Colbert and Valley transfer stations. Mr. Jackson said Spokane Valley favors Option 3A which is where the City and County purchase the transfer stations outright, with Spokane Valley purchasing the Spokane Valley transfer station and Spokane County purchasing the Colbert station, and the purchase would be paid back through gate fees; through an interlocal agreement, Spokane Valley would be part of the Spokane County Solid Waste Plan and Spokane Valley and Spokane County would immediately issue an RFP for transport and disposal; he said the City of Spokane could submit a bid which would meet their objective to be a vendor; and the private sector could submit a bid similar to the Rabanco/Allied bid for the Whitman County contract for transport and disposal with the contract being awarded to the lowest bidder. Further, Mr. Jackson explained, Spokane County and Spokane Valley would operate the Colbert and Valley transfer stations as a partnership and the County could issue one contract. Mr. Jackson said the Valley transfer station would serve the region, we would work together on options for the West Plains, and provide other required services through an interlocal agreement. Mr. Jackson said that ownership is very important; that it's about the value we place on customer service along with our ability to have a voice at the table and have the ability to control the use at the Valley transfer station since the majority use is by Valley residents; he said it would be a regional facility with the County operating the Colbert transfer station; and that with each location, the purchase would be paid back through the gate rate; he said that amortization schedule could even be extended and thus bring the rate down; that ten years is probably a reasonable period, and perhaps to invest a little more cash into those facilities to make them a twenty-year facility. City Manager Jackson said once an RFP is submitted, Spokane City could respond as the County did when we put out an RFP for animal control; he said this option is right out of the study; and said that Spokane City was favorable to this a few months ago although he can't say this is their position today. In order to help drive down costs,Mr. Jackson said we must always be vigilant; he said the study makes the assumption of having the West Plains transfer station, and we know that is what drives up the cost and keeps 3A from being the lowest cost option over time; he said we'd Iike to work together to see if there is a way to hold down those costs. City Manager Jackson said even if we consider the WTE plant option at the end of seven years, if we feel we haven't solved the West Plains transfer station issue, or feel we still have to construct a transfer station, then it would be better to make that decision now and have those seven years behind us; that leaving the issue open brings you right back to the same position in seven years. Mr. Jackson said it is obvious there would be variables in what the bids would be, or how long to amortize and how inexpensive you could build a West Plans transfer station, so we would have to make some assumptions, and if we did this, based on the process followed by Whitman County, all we're comparing is transport and disposal;he said their gate rate is $103. Mr. Jackson said Whitman County got a pretty good deal and it included transport from Pullman and the cost of the containers, that it doesn't mean we could repeat that deal, but are just looking at some logical options. Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka distributed copies of a chart giving a simplistic look at solid waste disposal options for Spokane Valley/Spokane County; he explained that as shown in the details of the study,the cost for the individual transfer stations in Spokane Valley and Colbert are less expensive for 3A then they are for option 2 and that it is the West Plains that drive up costs on some of the other options;he said option 2 came in at$107 per ton, while option 3A is $92 per ton; he said we noticed in option 2 that there was no accounting for 20,000 tons for the west plains for transfer station costs so we made some slight adjustments for those costs which would take option 2 up to $111 per ton; and using the same assumptions for option 3A, there is no adjustment to the transfer station operating costs; he said any changes would be across-the-board and we would hope for some additional savings through the competitive environment; he said we focused on where we could realize distinct savings and it is in transport and disposal which takes that $60 per ton down to $45. Mr. Koudelka said that we know there would be fewer miles for a short haul to the intermodal, and we have the ability to get more tons per container which would also reduce the cost, so we plugged in $45 per ton for transport and disposal. Mr. Koudelka said there could be other options looking at the West Plains service and we did not research that for today's discussions; and said the main point of these numbers is that there are options other than option 2 which could drive down the cost; but we don't know the exact figures without getting proposals or bids. Concerning cost,Mr. Jackson suggested putting this out to bid and removing the guesswork; he said these figures do not represent a vast savings, that the dollar amount is not a lot, but multiplied by tonnage multiplied by ten years it becomes millions; and said we want to take every opportunity to save every dime; said he feels the long term is the best option and best solution and it doesn't push the problem back seven years; he said we favor option 3A and think that rail might come in less expensive. Mr. Jackson asked everyone to take a hard look at these two options and see what is best for our citizens;that cost is a huge factor but we also need to resolve the West Plains issue. Concerning the handout and Option 3A, Commissioner Mielke asked if these figures would mean different rates for each transfer station. Mr. Jackson said it does not; but that he feels there is an advantage to this option; he agrees with one gate rate and to operate as a system to provide the lowest gate rate regionally, and said he is not proposing a different gate rate. Commissioner Mielke said it has been established through previous discussions that Spokane Valley is not willing to be in a position to underwrite costs to any jurisdiction just because of volume and he suggested the opposite is true, adding that the West Plains would receive the least tonnage. Mr. Jackson explained that he is still proposing a regional system and to set one gate rate, but a decision needs to be made concerning what to do with the West Plains as it impacts us all; and again asked, what can we do to hold down that cost; he said the only differential is that the Spokane Valley transfer station would cost more than Colbert, but Spokane Valley would be paid back through the gate rates over time and over bond issues. Commissioner Mielke said that option 2 is no resolution to the West Plains transfer station at the end of seven years, but under 3A, it contemplates the construction toward the front, and he asked if the cost could be spread over the entire system and seen in all the transfer station rates. Mr. Jackson replied that it would except it would be contingent upon us working together and deciding how much we can afford to spend on a West Plans transfer station; that if it drives the cost way up, we might all be back asking ourselves if that is the best option; ideally there would be one rate for a regional system, but we need to think about the West Plains. Commissioner Mielke also noted concerning the handout from Mr. Koudelka, the option of long haul and using rail; and said part of his concern is the history in working with the railroad as there never seems to be any leverage; hauling ash is probably the lowest revenue generating item they haul and said the handout assumes hauling more per car; and he questioned assuming room to expand for a commodity which gives the railroad the lowest return on investments. Mr. Koudelka replied that Mr. Jackson had conversations with BSF Railroad and that our numbers were based on Whitman County's numbers, and said their contract is all inclusive; that for the short haul to BNSF, they use open top containers; said the legal limit is 29 tons per container and the rail yard is capable of moving those efficiently at 27 tons; he Special Council Meeting: 09-04-2013 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 said Whitman County averages 15-26 tons with a tarp over the top; that we have a compactor that could get a little more tons into those containers; he said he heard from Whitman County that there was a time they didn't have the containers they contracted for, which was six at a time, and because there was a problem with the WTE plant, they had to use more containers to long haul; he said they had priority so those containers were at the WTE; adding that they have stipulations in their agreement that the waste can't be on the floor for more than a specified time or other arrangements must be made; and said there were only a couple slight issues from them. Mr. Jackson also stated that the project team met with Allied/Rabanco and with Eagle concerning contracts to load containers; and said they didn't see any issue with capacity, which he said is included as an alternative in the study. Mr. Jackson said the next step would be to bid it out and see what kind of contract you would get; and clarified that the team did not meet directly with BNSF Railroad. Commissioner Mielke said that Spokane City prefers option 2 and they see themselves as a partner in a regional system with option 2; and at the end of seven years, they'd partner to look for any additional solutions, like the West Plains transfer station; he explained that how you see the value of a regional system depends on the City of Spokane participating or not; that if as partners in the next phase,the City of Spokane would look at reappraised value of facilities, and under option 2 they would be willing to transfer the transfer station for a nominal fee; but if the County purchased it instead, the cost would be probably $10 million; or if they took it off the market and did a negotiated agreement with Waste Management, Commissioner Mielke said they would be looking at$22 million to build a transfer station; so he rhetorically asked,what is the value of having that City, and the answer is it looks like a$22 million question; that if they are not partners, they would Iikely take their transfer station off the market, putting the County in a$22 million position. Mr. Jackson said that today the transfer stations are for sale;that the Commissioners have a hearing early October, he said Spokane Valley is prepared to make an offer to purchase the transfer station and feels very strongly that ownership is a must for the County and for Spokane Valley for the system; and he suggested making that decision now instead of trying to foresee what would happen in seven years. Regarding a regional system, Mr. Jackson said the City of Spokane could continue to operate the system, which was an option until just recently, that they would operate the entire system and transfer stations during that period; and we would all negotiate what we would do at the end of that period,whether five or ten years; or the City of Spokane could turn their assets to the County and have a regional system under the County. Mr. Jackson said that Spokane City previously made a decision to operate the WTE plant and they said it doesn't matter if it cost more, they would operate the WTE plant, which puts some constraints on us all. Mr. Jackson said Spokane City indicated they would prefer to be a vendor if we'd purchase the transfer station, and they could bid on the final disposal;that he feels Spokane City made that decision to continue to operate the WTE plant, and the question is, do we go along with that at a higher cost, or look for the best solution we can; or perhaps the system could come back together under one roof. Commissioner Mielke asked Mr. Jackson what he sees as the necessity for ownership. City Manager Jackson replied that it has to do with "having a voice at the table" as we move forward and set service levels and cost for what is a utility for our citizens; that there are several self-haulers and he hopes to see more over time; as an example, said we paid Spokane VaIley's share of the cost of the study and have been working on this for several years; said he called Mr. French after the last joint meeting concerning a joint news release issued by the Public Information Officers from Spokane County and Spokane City, and he asked why wouldn't all three entities have a voice; and he stressed that we feel we would not have a seat at the table without ownership. Commissioner Mielke said that we have had three years of discussions about what jurisdictions can or can't do; said their understanding is that every jurisdiction controls its waste stream; before it releases it to a regional system the jurisdiction can tax it; said the question he knows will be raised from those that use the transfer stations is if Spokane Valley owns the transfer station would that mean they could impose a leasehold tax or utility tax at the facility, and it would no longer be limited to just the flows of Spokane Valley but assessed on all flows going through Special Council Meeting: 09-04-2013 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 the transfer station; said one of the issues of how to decide the next 20 years agreement was some jurisdictions said the City of Spokane could impose a utility tax on those outside the City of Spokane. Further, Mr. Mielke said what the difference is between Valley ownership and County ownership is the County has no authority for imposing a utility tax under state law, but Spokane Valley could impose such a tax on all users even outside its jurisdiction; so Spokane Valley wants to have control over service and cost. Mr. Jackson said he agrees that eventually there has to be some kind of governance; that the County has to be responsible to those other cities; he said we are in"for the whole game" and that a utility tax is a threshold of ownership which is up to Council in terms of what kind of agreement they would want, or to have a utility tax or not; he said all those trucks go across the Valley roads so the only way we would take advantage of that is if it generated money for the roads; he said Council would have to decide whether to increase fees and the most Iegitimate way to increase the fee is a tax; and said that the threshold is the ownership, not necessarily the ability to impose a tax. Commission Chair O'Quinn said if the County owned the facility, Spokane Valley could impose a tax on its own citizens, Deputy City Attorney Lamb said Spokane Valley would not be able to impose a utility tax if the facility were owned by the County; said there is statutory prohibition on that as well as case law to support his statement; and added he realizes the County has a different legal view. Commissioner Mielke said they have used outside counsel in the past on this issue, and said every jurisdiction owns its flows until through an interlocal agreement, it releases them, and can impose a fee on their flows. County Attorney Emacio added that he worked with Attorney DiJulio and asked him the same question; agreed that Mr. Driskell and Mr. Lamb don't necessarily agree; said Attorney DiJulio feels you don't have to own the facility to determine whether to impose a utility tax; and said there has not been an opportunity to have Spokane Valley Attorneys speak with Mr. DiJulio and perhaps that could be resolved by having those attorneys sit down together; adding that the Board of County Commissioners relied upon Mr. DiJulio's opinion. Commissioner Mielke said the intent of the Board for any regional system as it is established,would make it clear that every jurisdiction would keep the right to impose any fee consistent with state statutes. Councilmember Grafos said we are not trying to find a way to raise rates but rather to keep rates down, and feel that we should own it; it is in the middle of our City, and it makes sense we would own it,control it, and be part of the system. Commissioner Mielke disagreed, and said speaking for himself, there are some regional assets that are within the corporate boundaries of other jurisdictions which serve all citizens throughout the County, such as the Fairgrounds or Plantes Ferry Park. Councilmember Wick stated that without ownership,how can we be sure we are at the table;that even though we paid for a third of the study, we were not included in the announcements; that ownership is having a seat at the table. Addressing the difference in opinion between the attorneys, Councilmember Hafner said he feels there would be the ability to work things out in an interlocal agreement. Commissioner French said that we have been here since February 2011; when developing the agreement for the alliance, language was given to each jurisdiction concerning the right to impose a tax; that he recognizes through that alliance that every jurisdiction deserves the right to self-determination; he said he feels reasonable minds can and have come to that conclusion, and that can be incorporated into any necessary documents. Concerning the press releases, Commissioner French said that was an unfortunate situation that the two PIOs (Public Information Officer) did not include the third PIO; said that was not driven by the County and he extended his apologies; said the two PIOs decided they would be aggressive and that was not the direction of his Board. Mr.Jackson said we know time is short; that the County wants a decision as we do; and this is the option we want to examine, and he asked if there is a possibility of working with the County on this option; asked if there is more research or other questions to answer; that we want to consider our alternatives and realize the Board will have a decision to make, and asked if this is a viable alternate to continue to examine. The group took a short break at 12:21 p.m. for lunch; Mayor Towey resumed the meeting at 12:42 p.m. Special Council Meeting: 09-04-2013 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 Mayor Towey said that our preference of options is 3A; that he realizes the Board of County Commissioners can't make a decision today, but he would like to continue the dialogue about what parts can we work with; he said we would like to work with the County for a regional system, and he asked if the County is willing to work in that direction with us, or if they have other preferences. From his perspective, Commissioner Mielke said his biggest concern in trying to take the next step and how to move forward, is the transfer stations and the unknown that accompanies that; with a range of just $1.00 with commitment of flow over a certain period of time, up to a $22 million endeavor, their top priority is to have as much certainty as possible regarding the transfer stations; said he has learned over the last few years about how you pick up solid waste; that cities can use haulers or create their own collection system; that he's also learned where you put it after it is collected is vital to the base of the system; said with the prospect of having their own transfer station, and then look at the public facilities regulations, that using any transfer station other than those that already exist means a lot of uncertainty in cost and time, adding that they don't have the luxury of that time; said Option 2 is a seven year commitment and in that seven year time,they get certainty regarding what we know we are doing versus an unknown construction price; and they also get the commitment of the City of Spokane to be a partner in a system; he said their citizenry makes up about 206,000; and what's driving his decision is he wants that certainty as early as possible on this fundamental building block in the solid waste system, Mayor Towey asked on a scale of one to ten, how important is it to the County to own that transfer station. Commissioner Mielke said the notion that there is some certainty beyond the short term periods and that it's part of the system, otherwise they'd be right back where we are today; said if something happened in the future that would cause Spokane Valley to break away, that creates a huge amount of uncertainty; said what elected leaders do for their citizens is their call as he is a firm believer in driving the decision to the local level; said he also has some concern philosophically about Spokane Valley's ability to make decisions outside their borders. Mayor Towey responded that if we called it a regional system, those problems could be solved by interlocals; to which Commissioner Mielke said yes, if we all agree; adding if you were to try to sign away powers of a future legislature, the Courts have in the past thrown that out; said if Spokane Valley has powers of regulations and taxation, to sign it away would be to tie the hands of future legislators that may decide to impose a utility tax for roads or enhance law enforcement; and said the courts have preserved the right to not impair a future legislature. Councilmember Wick said that just as the City of Spokane has a commitment, we too are saying we are committed to not having a utility tax; that there is no guarantee of how many different positions could come back in the future; that the Board is going on Spokane's commitment, while we are just as committed not to impose a utility tax on other jurisdictions that want to be a partner today, and Mayor Towey agreed that as elected officials, the worst thing would. be to have another jurisdiction tax your citizens. Commissioner Mielke said that the slight difference is, the Board has the ability to tax the entire county and can't blame another set of elected officials, but only have ourselves to be held accountable. Commission Chair O'Quinn stated that there are nine jurisdictions within her district and she hears from them all, and feels it is important to come together for an agreement and look at the future; that each jurisdiction has the ability to "opt into" the County's plan; regional assets should be a benefit for all citizens; she said we don't know what will happen on the West Plains; that the Board doesn't want to own the WTE plant but at some point, that regional asset will come to the end of its life; that no one wants to commit to twenty years, whereas the seven to ten year period will meet initial local needs and still allow for long term planning; said she sees the seven to ten years as a strategic plan to move forward; that she'll look at this issue in terms of what is best for all citizens of Spokane County; and said she appreciates today's discussions, input and feedback; that she's comfortable with the seven years, but it doesn't mean another hybrid option couldn't come up. Councilmember Grafos suggested that if Spokane Valley owns the Spokane Valley Transfer Station with the City of Spokane as a vendor,they'd use their transfer station for flow and probably would be a reason to have a West Plains transfer station. Chair O'Quinn said she is not necessarily advocating for a West Plains transfer station; that if the City of Spokane is part of the regional system, they'd continue to service the West Plans; that if Spokane Valley wants ownership and Special Council Meeting: 09-04-2013 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 to be at the table there is no reason why they can't be at the table even if they are not an owner; said she sees no reason why we can't have a regional advisory group to allow for those involved to have input. Commissioner French said he has seen this issue from all sides; that in February 2011 they stated they wanted to treat waste differently and create an alliance where everyone had a seat at the table; at the end they heard back that they want the County to be in control; and if people don't like what we're doing the citizens can remove them from office; adding that he can't control decisions in other jurisdictions, so they backed away from the alliance; said the City uses the WTE plant as a way to dispose of waste and it is an economic driver and could be an engine for economic activity on the West Plains; that it has been designated as a renewable energy source and they got tax breaks, even though that was eventually taken away; said the challenge is the limited life expectancy without upkeep and what does the County or City do when the WTE plant is dead,they'd have to go long-haul and said it is not a matter of if but when; said he feels ultimately the entire region will be looking at long haul. Commissioner French said this has been a good discussion and Mr. Koudelka's report has been enlightening; said he hasn't had this conversation with Spokane City but feels it is a conversation worth having, and to determine if the City would be willing to allow the West Plains customer to continue to deliver waste to the WTE plant or add a compactor to that and make it a true transfer station and still meet the needs of all the customers in the West Plains; said he appreciates their willingness to consider a phased out conversion of the WTE Plant instead of a seven year or nothing idea; said they don't need everything committed to today but need some certainty for the next three to four years. Additionally, Mr. French explained that when the consultant gave the report, they were told the mean figures were historically high and not a true projection of actual costs, so likely there will be opportunities for savings; he spoke of rail expansion opportunity and of the opportunity for economic growth in the West Plains as there is currently none; and said the City of Spokane is willing to consider that an early buyout provides opportunity to mature and perfect the costs and move forward without damaging neighbors. Regarding owning the Valley transfer station, Commissioner French said he understands the arguments to have that under Spokane Valley control and that he was surprised at the alliance meeting to hear Spokane Valley wanted the County to own the facility. Concerning the issue of taxation and the letter to the editor this morning about Commissioner French's statement to the media about taxing the garbage, he said that was not what he told the reporter; that he told the reporter Spokane Valley wanted to preserve that option. Commissioner French also noted that he feels the ability to tax is not contingent upon ownership as with his conversations with Attorney DeJulio; said it would be similar to taxing water where you are not taxing the water but the water in the pipes; so it would not be taxing the garbage but the ability to tax would not be not hampered by ownership; said we can find a way to provide the ability to maintain self-determination for Spokane Valley but the Board has to protect those elsewhere as well; and said he feels reasonable minds can find a solution. Commissioner Mielke said as they move to a decision, top consideration is the transfer station; said the other thing is that most citizens elected them to take care of all the details; in making this transposition to the current twenty-year plan, the Board has the responsibility to maintain some level of certainty and smooth transition with as Iittle disruption in citizens' lives as possible; and will also consider this issue from a financial certainty as well as delegation of service certainty. Mayor Towey said he agrees today's discussion has been good and that he understands the County wants certainty, as does the City of Spokane and Spokane Valley; and the only way to get that is to work together to try to eliminate obstacles. Commissioner French suggested having Attorney DiJulio and the Spokane Valley attorneys get together to see if they can come to some understanding about what's legal regarding the utility tax; and said he feels it is critical to Spokane Valley and the Board in making a decision; and Mayor Towey agreed that the results of the meeting among the attorneys could determine Spokane Valley's decision on how to move forward. Councilmember Wick added that the best thing is to acquire the transfer station before the City of Spokane changes their mind; that concerning the regional Special Council Meeting:09-04-2013 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 system, Spokane Valley did not come up with the idea of using the City of Spokane as a vendor, as we got an e-mail from them stating they preferred that option. Commissioner Mielke said in order to give private citizens and business owners an opportunity to give their opinions, the County has scheduled a hearing for October; and he agreed that the common objective is to provide the best, most convenient service at the lowest cost for the constituents; to have a predicable cost efficient system; and the issue is how to secure the transfer station at the lowest cost as soon as possible but still give opportunities for other options; he said option 2 is a seven-year commitment; that the City of Spokane expressed an openness and willingness that they'd entertain an early buyout option; he said the Board will prepare for the October hearing and look at the list of options to help reach the objectives; he also stated the Board had previously made a commitment to Spokane City about making a decision by the end of September, but the Board has moved that to about ten days later. City Manager Jackson said he appreciates what Commissioner French said and said our decision does not hinge on a utility tax, but ownership is about all the other reasons previously discussed; and said he has no objection to the attorneys discussing the tax, but said that is not foremost on our minds. Councilmember Grafos agreed and said the discussion has never been about a utility tax, but to work together to control the costs. Commissioner Mielke thanked Spokane Valley for hosting the meeting today and for this opportunity for open dialogue. Chair O'Quinn asked if the Board chooses to own all the transfer stations, how will Spokane Valley more forward, and Mayor Towey replied that if that occurs, this Council would have to evaluate that and see how it fits in the regional concept of what Spokane Valley envisions. Mayor Towey also thanked everyone for coming and said the too feels it was a very productive exchange of information, and to keep in mind that any decision would impact all citizens for a long time. Commissioner French said he will get clarification from the City of Spokane as reinforced by Mr. Koudelka's figures; and said between now and a final decision, there will be a lot of information gathering, and he will be happy to share; said he also feels today was very helpful and informative, and the Board will make the decision when everyone is fully informed. Mayor Towey adjourned the meeting at 1:42 p.m. , A -Thomas E.Toomey, Mayor J- 1 '1 A . hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting: 09-04-2013 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 09-17-2013 Solid Waste Disposal Options - Spokane Valley/Spokane County 1. Transport and Disposal Cost reduced from$60/ton to$45/ton($50 for Whitman County with reduction for fewer short haul miles and greater container tons. 2. Transport and Disposal Costs reduced to$45/ton,20,000 West Plains tons going to other transfer stations. Option 2 Use Existing TS Use WTE Diposal Option 2 Corrected for West Plains Transfer Station Costs Option 3A New West Plains TS Purchase Colbert and SV TS w/Comp.Rail Disposal' Option 3A Purchase Colbert and SV TS No West Plains TS w/Comp.Rail Disposals Cost Per Ton $ 107 $ 111 $ 102 $ 92 Annual Syst.Savings @157,000 tons $ - $ - $ 1,413,000 $ 2,983,000 1. Transport and Disposal Cost reduced from$60/ton to$45/ton($50 for Whitman County with reduction for fewer short haul miles and greater container tons. 2. Transport and Disposal Costs reduced to$45/ton,20,000 West Plains tons going to other transfer stations. a 'ly's G O .0000Nvillie' ss:an on 1- 1. City and County to purchase the transfer stations outright. 2. SV would purchase SV transfer station — Spokane County would purchase Colbert. Paid back through gate fees. 3. SV would be part of Spokane County Solid Waste Plan by Interlocal Agreement 4. SV and County would immediately issue RFP for transport and disposal City of Spokane WTE could submit a bid — this meets their objective to be a vendor The private sector could submit a bid i.e. similar to the Rabanco/Allied bid for Whitman County contract for transport and disposal 5. The contract for transport and disposal would be awarded to lowest bidder. 6. Spokane County and Spokane Valley operate Colbert and Valley transfer stations as a partnership. Spokane County could issue one contract. Valley transfer station would serve the region. 7, Work together on options for West Plains. S. Provide other required services through Interlocal Agreement. a