2013, 10-04 SV Ltr to BoCC CT1`Y `:- - - - - - --
�,'. o OF - e
Valle11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000® Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhallCspokanevalley.org
N».S.Br..._..s,.r «. :-'.??. ..:..::?i...a.'v�-.4.ar.Xts"_. �c:.Y_ v . -:.<.-j_ .wF.e-:'s',t., . . . -.>.Yfe.:.esx
October 4, 2013
Spokane County Board of Commissioners
Spokane County Courthouse
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane,WA 99260
RE: Spokane County Solid Waste Public Hearing 10/8/13
Dear Commissioners Shelly O'Quinn,Al French, and Todd Mielke:
We would like to thank the Spokane County Commissioners and Spokane County
staff for meeting with the City of Spokane Valley City Council and City staff on
Wednesday, September 4th to discuss the solid waste transfer and disposal issues
facing our respective jurisdictions.Although the City and County have differing
opinions on this issue,we do appreciate the opportunity to share ideas and
concerns.
The City is aware that Spokane County will conduct a public hearing on October 8,
2013 prior to making a decision as to the solid waste transfer and disposal option
the County will pursue. The City of Spokane Valley requests that this letter become
part of the public record of the public hearing.
Recap of September Joint Meeting
Attached are the handouts provided to Spokane County at the September 4,joint
meeting.As we discussed with the County,the City of Spokane Valley City Council
and City staff believes the County and City should cooperatively look to the most
economical option for our citizens. As we discussed at the joint meeting,the City
believes that the most economical option is for Spokane County to purchase the
Colbert and Spokane Valley transfer stations outright and to competitively bid for
rail haul disposal.1 This alternative is shown in the attached spreadsheet Solid
Waste Disposal Options-Spokane Valley/Spokane County under the column labeled
Option 3A Purchase Colbert and SV TS No West Plains TS w/ Competitive Rail
Disposal.This option would also require finding an alternative to building a new
West Plains transfer station.The City believes that by competitively bidding for rail
hauling, this option could potentially save the citizens of Spokane County and
Spokane Valley roughly$2,983,000 per year or$29,830,000 over the next ten years,
1 Spokane Valley recognizes the County wishes to own both transfer stations.
f..
Commissioners, cont.
2 ' Page
as compared against disposal at the City.e€:Spokane Waste to Energy plant under
the terms currently being offered by the City o °SpQkar e. Please note this is almost
the same as Option 3A on page 26 of the HDR.study with the exception of the
development of a new West Plains transfer station and our assumptions for
competitively bid rail haul rates. We believe an alternative to the West Plains
transfer station proposed in the study can be found. This could include the
construction of a lower cost facility or sending compactor trucks directly to the
existing transfer stations in Spokane Valley or Colbert. The cost of fuel, drivers,
extra mileage, and other associated costs are only a fraction of the cost of building
and operating a new West Plains transfer station of the magnitude proposed in the
HDR study. Another obvious alternative would be use of the City of Spokane Waste
to Energy transfer station,but we understand the City of Spokane is reluctant to
allow this.
Our desire is to work collaboratively with the County to reach a decision as to the
most economical means of solid waste disposal for our region. Based on previous
discussions with County Commissioners and County Staff, it appears the County is
leaning toward Option 2,with the County acquiring the Colbert and Spokane Valley
transfer stations for nominal cost and to send all solid waste to the City of Spokane
Waste to Energy plant for a period of 7 to 10 years. However,the City of Spokane
Valley does not see Option 2 as the most economical for our citizens or as a
permanent solution. Under Option 2 there would be no open competitive bidding
process to ensure the lowest cost for transport and disposal. There also,is no '
commitment from the City of Spokane that the County could continue to utilize the
West Plains transfer station in perpetuity. The possibility exists that we will be back
having the same conversations in Ito 10 years.
The City of Spokane Valley does not interpret the study developed by HDR and
jointly funded by City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and the City of Spokane as
providing a definitive recommendation on transfer and disposal options. Rather,
the City sees the analysis as a set of data which needs to be studied and discussed
and bid competitively to determine actual cost. In fact,the study was designed to
provide cost centers for transfer station operation,transport, and disposal that can
be mixed and matched and configured to determine multiple possible solutions.The
options in the matrix on page 26 of the HDR study are not intended to represent the
only solutions. PIease see the Cost Centers in Section D and E of the HDR study.
Accepting Option 2 based merely on the cost shown in the HDR study matrix does
not represent the due diligence this complex topic requires and could result in rate
payers paying almost$30 million more than may be necessary over the next ten
years.
. i
Commissioners, cont,
3 ! Page
Regional System
Reference has been made that sending waste to the Waste to Energy plant
represents a"regional system."The City of Spokane Valley believes this is a
misapplication of the regional concept. A true regional system would make all
current solid waste system assets available to all jurisdictions for the life of those
assets without restriction, allowing for a competitive process to provide the greatest
benefit to all citizens of Spokane County.
Conclusion
The City of Spokane Valley believes that one of its primary obligations in reviewing
solid waste transfer and disposal options is to provide low cost services to its
citizens. We feel the County has a similar obligation to its citizens to also provide
low cost services. We feel that the benefits from competitively bidding for rail haul
disposal (potentially saving citizens $30 million over the next 10 years versus
continuing to haul to Spokane's Waste to Energy plant) makes a compelling
argument. As you make your decision,please consider the information provided to
you at our joint meeting on September 4, 2013 and attached hereto.
Sincerely,
Thomas E.Towey,
Mayor
attachments
cc: Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Dean Grafos
Chuck Hafner
Rod Higgins
Ben Wick
Arne Woodard
4.
on
ft
r'
Spreadsheet 1
Slid Waste, sp'osa11:Options-Spoka
e Valley/Spokane Cottn
Option 2
=Use Existing,TS
Use WIEDipcsal
Optidn 2
torrectedfor West PlaireS
TranSter.Station'Costs:
Opticra3A
• 'Nevi WestPlains.TS •
::PurchaexolbertzPd•SY7.5
Nut Cornp.amEi Disp• tosat4*
Option,SA
Purchase CallietterterWTS- ,
filo-West:Plains-TS'
mAri-Corrip,..fte.Zisposelz
T 'Co.. :red'oced fi!brxi$60/torito.$45/ton 450 forWbitmaztrzuritmithzeciaction•for fewer fic:srt liaantesendlgreater cottiineruas.,
2.Transport and Disposal Cosit reduced:to-$4.Sitoni 20;000 WestPlains:tonszerigto-other tpziasierstatiorm