2010, 03-30 Special Joint Spokane Council MeetingCITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
Spokane Valley City Council
Spokane City Mayor and Council
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
2:00 p.m. — 4:30 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDE (but are not limited to):
1) Animal Control
2) Solid Waste System
3) Regional Jail
4) Transportation Benefit District
5) Other Topics of Mutual Interest
During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any
item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action' means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider,
evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision.
NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other
impairments, please contact the Ci ty Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made.
03/30/2010 Joint Meeting, Council & Spokane City Council
SPDX TNE
o -�
Information Paper
For: Council President Joe Shogan, Spokane County
Commissioner Todd Mielke, and Mayor Munson City of
Spokane Valley, Mayor Van Orman, City of Liberty Lake.
Subject: Proposed Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
Date: Updated: 2/1/2010
Issue
The issue of animal control and welfare is problematic for cities and counties
nationally and internationally. Leaders in these communities have battled with
finding a balance between control of the animal population, preservation of the rights
of animal owners and the protection of citizens from dangerous animals, in particular
dogs. The City of Spokane is no exception.
Due to the controversy over the City's culling of squirrels in the Spokane Finch
Arboretum and community concern with dog bites, puppy mills and dog fighting, the
issue of animal welfare and control has received a higher profile. In addition, the
City of Spokane, in agreement with SpokAnimal, plans to hand over the
responsibility of animal control within the City of Spokane to the Spokane County
Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS).
The lesson for cities is that they cannot anticipate the changing politics of non - profit
animal welfare organizations, nor can they dictate what these private organizations
should do. Non - profit charities have their own missions and agendas that may not
coincide with the interests of the cities, and many non - profit organizations may be
duplicating their efforts.
Cities and counties need to work with the animal welfare non - profits and within their
communities to develop programs and solutions that are current, not adhoc, and
utilizes the expertise within their communities.
The question now arises, how does the City of Spokane interact with other
municipalities in Spokane County and the County itself on animal issues? To
answer this question, I have had Lisa Rosier from my office research this issue and
she proposes the following initiative. This information paper is the result of her
research and experience.
Background
In the year 2000, the City of Spokane had an informal Animal Welfare Committee
whose primary purpose was to oversee animal control issues for the City and make
recommendations to the City Council when appropriate. These recommendations
included, but were not limited to:
*Amendments to municipal Animal Ordinances;
• Contracts; and
• Revisions to the City Animal Control Policies and Procedures.
The Committee met on a monthly basis and members consisted of the Directors of
the Spokane Humane Society, SCRAPS, SpokAnimal and the Spokane Parks and
Recreation Department. Also included on this Committee were representatives from
various animal welfare groups.
This Committee eventually disbanded in 2002. Minutes from these meetings were
not kept and from the agendas in the files, it appears that the discussions centered
on animal control issues and policies. A possible explanation for the disbanding
was a time commitment and the issues discussed.
• Page 2
Given that the three animal welfare directors communicate with each other on a
regular basis, the Committee meetings may have become redundant leading to its
dissolution.
Research & Consultation
Over the past few months Lisa has met with Assistant City Attorney Mike Piccolo;
Hearing Examiner Greg Smith; Tami Palmquist, City Planning Office; Dave
Richardson, Director of the Spokane Humane Society; Nancy Hill, Director of
Spokane Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS); and Gail Mackie, Director
of SpokAnimal. In addition, meetings have been held with Spokane Council
President Joe Shogan; County Commissioner Todd Mielke; Mayor Munson, City of
Spokane Valley; Council Member Bob Apple, and Council Member Richard Rush's
Assistant Lori Kinnear to discuss this proposal and provide input into the process of
formalizing this Committee. All participants are in favor of a Regional Animal
Welfare Committee adopted through a joint resolution.
Further, there is a plethora of research both nationally and internationally that
indicates a Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee sanctioned through the
Spokane City Council, other municipalities of the County and the County itself,
would be effective in addressing issues involving animals both domestic and urban
within these cities.
Purpose
The purpose of formalizing a Spokane County Regional Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee is to address the issue of animal welfare with a holistic approach
focusing on both proactive and preventative programs, as well as enforcement. This
Committee will advise the City of Spokane, other County Municipalities and the
County itself on issues relating to animal welfare by conducting research, reporting
on findings, making recommendations to the respective entities on issues relating to
animal welfare and control for domestic animals and urban wildlife.
• Page 3
Recommendations on issues and initiatives relating to animal welfare and control
within the parameters of this Committee include; animal control legislation and local
ordinances (County and Municipalities), licensing and other fees, public education
and awareness programs, off -leash dog parks, adoption programs, spay /neuter
programs, feral cats, puppy mills, dangerous animals and code enforcement.
Proposed Objectives
:- advise on issues and concerns faced by owners of animals located in the
Municipalities within the Region of Spokane County;
advise on opportunities that have been identified within the Region to improve
animal welfare;
investigate and report on issues regarding animal welfare and control referred to
the Committee by the Municipalities within the Region;
advise, consult and report findings and recommendations on matters relating to
animal welfare throughout the Region that directly relates to the mandate of the
Advisory Committee;
➢ review and make recommendations to municipalities within the region on
solutions to improve animal welfare;
- review, develop and support legislative issues that make a positive impact on
animal welfare in the region;
facilitate improved consistency of legislation and public policy regarding animal
welfare throughout the Region;
promote collaboration and cooperation between all animal welfare and animal
control organizations throughout the Region;
0 Page 4
serve as a forum for the exchange of information on initiatives and issues
involving the various organizations that deal with animals in the Region, pet
owners that must balance their daily activities with urban wildlife and businesses
that may have a role to play in fostering increased animal welfare activities; and
➢ advise on issues concerning animals within the Region including, but not limited
to, licensing and other fees, public education and awareness programs, off-
leash dog parks, adoption and spay /neuter programs, feral cats, and code
enforcement.
Reporting of Committee
The Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will report to the Spokane City
Council President, the Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, the smaller City
Representative, and the Chairperson of the Board of Spokane County
Commissioners or their respective appointees. The Committee shall report to the
above representatives in a joint meeting no less then twice a year.
Composition of committee:
Voting Members:
A maximum of ten voting members consisting of one representative from each of
the following specific organizations:
► Spokane City Council President or his /her Appointee
► Chairperson of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners or his /her
Appointee
► Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley Representative or his /her Appointee
► Smaller City Representative that participates with S.C. R.A.P.S be nominated
by the Northeast Mayor's Association - (Municipalities under 10,000)
► Local Attorney specializing in animal law legislation
► Veterinarian
► Community Pets - nonprofit spay neuter /education organization
• Page 5
► Four Citizens at Large. (One appointed by the City of Spokane, one appointed
by Spokane County, one appointed by the City of Spokane Valley and one
appointed by the Smaller City representative).
Non - Voting Resource Group:
One representative of each of the following will be available to attend the Advisory
Committee's meetings when necessary:
❖ Spokane Parks and Recreation Department
❖ Spokane County Parks Department
❖ Planning and Development Departments of the City of Spokane, City of
Spokane Valley and Spokane County
❖ Code Enforcement Departments of the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley
and Spokane County
❖ Office of Spokane City Attorney
❖ Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney
❖ Hearing Examiner
❖ Rescue Organizations (dog /cat) as deemed appropriate
❖ Animal Behavior Specialist/Trainer
❖ Other jurisdiction or agency as deemed appropriate
Suggested Qualifications
Candidates will have the necessary membership, experience, credentials and
interest relative to the organization or category that they represent, including, but not
limited to:
a range of background experience operating a domestic animal kennel, a
veterinarian clinic, animal rescue program, breeding operation or pet supply store;
O experience with the unique nature of urban wildlife and its associated needs;
O a keen interest in animal welfare within the Region;
0 Page 6
regard for the interest of all citizens and animals, respecting that there are very
diverse views on animal welfare;
a commitment to working with all parties involved in animal welfare, including the
various entities,
a desire to develop a common approach to animal welfare and control which is
reasonable and practical and considers the interests of all parties;
O a knowledge and understanding of legislation applicable to animals; and,
the ability to commit the required time to effectively carry out the Regional Animal
Welfare Advisory Committee's mandate.
Appointment Policies /Applications
Smaller City Representative with a population under 10,000 shall be appointed by
the Northeast Mayors Association.
Citizens at Large representing the City of Spokane, Spokane County, the City of
Spokane Valley and the smaller Cities with a population under 10,000 shall apply to
their respective entities for confirmation.
Community Pets shall nominate its representative to the Spokane City Council
President or his /her Appointee and the Chairperson of the Board of Spokane County
Commissioners or his /her appointee for their joint approval.
The positions of Animal Law Attorney and Veterinarian shall be appointed by a
majority vote by other Committee members.
• Page 7
In addition to seeking candidates with the necessary qualifications and the
commitment to fulfilling the mandate of the Regional Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee, every effort will be made to ensure balanced representation on the
Committee so as to best represent the views of the Region.
The Chair and Vice -Chair position will rotate between the four cities in the
following order: Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley and
Smaller City. The Vice -Chair position will automatically ascend to the position of
Chair after the Chair position is vacated.
There will be a maximum of two terms for the Citizens at Large positions unless
these positions are unable to be filled, then special approval by the Spokane City
Council President, Representatives of the Spokane Valley and Smaller Cities, and
the Spokane County Commissioner will be required
Term of Office
Staggered three year terms.
Meetings
Meeting schedules will be decided by members of the Committee and the location
will be rotated between Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley
and Smaller Cities participating in this Committee.
Agendas and minutes of all meetings shall be recorded in a standard format and
sent to the Spokane City Clerk, the City of Spokane Valley Clerk, and the Spokane
County Commissioner's Clerk of the Board for archiving and made available on their
websites for access by the public.
Committee members will provide staff and research support as they are able.
All meetings shall be open to the public.
• Page 8
Participation in the Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will be on a
voluntary basis.
If you are amenable to formalizing this Regional Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee it would require an Interlocal Agreement between our Cities.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Joe Shogan
Spokane City Council President
Contact Person:
L sa Ras Joe Shogan
PubliG Safety Council Presid
Spokane City Council
(509) 625 - 0714
4 shogan .spokanecity.ora
• Page 9
DRAFT
Resolution No.
A resolution regarding the establishment of the Spokane County Regional Animal Welfare Advisory
Committee.
WHEREAS, the issue of animal control and welfare is problematic for cities and counties nationally
and internationally. Leaders in these communities have battled with finding a balance between control of the
animal population, preservation of the rights of animal owners and the protection of citizens from dangerous
animals, in particular, dogs. Local governments in Spokane County are no exception.
WHEREAS, due to the controversy over the City's culling of squirrels in the Spokane Finch
Arboretum and community concern with dog bites, puppy mills and dog fighting, the issue of animal welfare
and control has received a higher profile. In addition, the City of Spokane, in agreement with SpokAnimal,
plans to hand over the responsibility of animal control within the City of Spokane to the Spokane County
Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS).
WHEREAS, the lesson for local governments is that they cannot anticipate the changing politics of
non - profit animal welfare organizations, nor can they dictate what these private organizations should do. Non-
profit charities have their own missions and agendas that may not coincide with the interests of the cities, and
many non - profit organizations may be duplicating their efforts.
WHEREAS, cities and counties need to work with the animal welfare non - profits within their
communities to develop programs and solutions that are current, not adhoc, and utilizes the expertise within
their communities.
WHEREAS, the question now arises, how does the City of Spokane interact with other municipalities
in Spokane County and the County itself on animal issues?
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF
SPOKANE that the Spokane County Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is hereby established as
follows:
I. Purpose.
The purpose of formalizing the Spokane County Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
( "Committee ") is to address the issue of animal welfare with a holistic approach focusing on both proactive and
preventative programs, as well as enforcement. This Committee will advise Spokane County, the City of
Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley and other municipalities on issues relating to animal welfare by
conducting research, report on findings, make recommendations to the respective entities on issues relating to
animal welfare and control for domestic animals and urban wildlife.
Recommendations on issues and initiatives relating to animal welfare and control within the parameters
of this Committee include: animal control legislation and local ordinances (county and municipalities); licensing
and other fees; public education and awareness programs; off -leash dog parks; adoption programs; spay /neuter
programs; feral cats; puppy mills; dangerous animals; and code enforcement.
H. Objectives
The proposed objectives of the Committee will be to:
A. provide advice on issues and concerns faced by owners of animals located in Spokane County
and the municipalities within Spokane County;
City of Spokane Draft DRAFT Page 1 of 5
W ' A►M
B. provide advice on opportunities that have been identified within the region to improve animal
welfare;
C. investigate and report on issues regarding animal welfare and control referred to the
Committee by Spokane County and the municipalities within Spokane County;
D. advise, consult and report findings and recommendations on matters relating to animal welfare
throughout Spokane County that directly relate to the mandate of the Committee;
E. review and make recommendations to Spokane County and the municipalities within Spokane
County on solutions to improve animal welfare;
F. review, develop and support legislative issues that make a positive impact on animal welfare in
the region;
G. facilitate improved consistency of legislation and public policy regarding animal welfare
throughout Spokane County;
H. promote collaboration and cooperation between all animal welfare and animal control
organizations throughout Spokane County;
I. serve as a forum for the exchange of information on initiatives and issues involving the various
organizations that deal with animals in Spokane County; and
J. advise on issues concerning animals within Spokane County including, but not limited to,
licensing and other fees, public education and awareness programs, off -leash dog parks,
adoption and spay /neuter programs, feral cats, and code enforcement.
M. Reporting of Committee.
The Committee will report to the Chairperson of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners, the
Spokane City Council President, the Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, and the smaller cities representative,
or their respective appointees. The Committee shall report to the above representatives in a joint meeting no less
then twice a year.
IV. Composition of Committee.
A. Votinp_ Members
A maximum of eleven (11) voting members consisting of one representative from each of the following
specific organizations:
1. Chairperson of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners or his/her appointee;
2. Spokane City Council President or his/her appointee;
3. Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley representative or his/her appointee;
4. A Smaller Cities Representative that participates with S.C.R.A.P.S. or Spokanimal C.A.R.E.,
to be nominated by the Northeast Mayor's Association - (municipalities under 10, 000);
City of Spokane Draft Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
5.
6.
7.
Local attorney specializing in animal law legislation;
Veterinarian;
Community Pets - nonprofit spay neuter /education organization; and
8. Four Citizens at Large (one appointed by Spokane County, one appointed by the City of
Spokane, one appointed by the City of Spokane Valley and one appointed by the Smaller Cities
Representative).
B. Non - Voting Resource Group
One representative of each of the following will be available to attend the Advisory Committee's
meetings when necessary:
1. Spokane Parks and Recreation Department;
2. Spokane County Parks Department;
3. Planning and Development Departments of the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley and
Spokane County;
4. Code Enforcement Departments of the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley and Spokane
County;
5. Office of Spokane City Attorney;
6. Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney;
7. Hearing Examiner;
8. Rescue Organizations (dog/cat) as deemed appropriate;
9. Animal Behavior Specialist/Trainer; and
10. Other jurisdiction or agency as deemed appropriate.
C. Oualifications
Candidates will have the necessary membership, experience, credentials or interest relative to the
organization or category that they represent, including, but not limited to:
1. a range of background experience operating a domestic animal kennel, a veterinarian clinic,
animal rescue program, breeding operation or pet supply store;
2. experience with the unique nature of urban wildlife and its associated needs;
3. a keen interest in animal welfare within Spokane County;
? s j it
City of Spokane Draft Page 3 of 5
DRAFT
4. regard for the interest of all citizens and animals, respecting that there are very diverse views
on animal welfare;
5. a commitment to working with all parties involved in animal welfare, including the various
entities;
6. a desire to develop a common approach to animal welfare and control which is reasonable and
practical and considers the interests of all parties;
a knowledge and understanding of legislation applicable to animals; and
the ability to commit the required time to effectively cant' out the Regional Animal Welfare
Advisory Committee's purpose and objectives.
D. Appointment Policies/Applications
Smaller Cities Representative with a population under 10,000 shall be appointed by the
Northeast Mayor's Association.
2. Citizens at Large representing Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane
Valley and the smaller cities with a population under 10,000, shall apply to their respective
entities for confirmation.
3. Community Pets shall nominate its representative to the Spokane City Council President or
his/her Appointee and the Chairperson of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners or
his/her appointee for their joint approval.
4. The positions of animal law attorney and veterinarian shall be appointed by a majority vote by
other Committee members.
In addition to seeking candidates with the necessary qualifications and the commitment to fulfilling the
mandate of the Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, every effort will be made to ensure balanced
representation on the Committee so as to best represent the views of the entire Spokane County region.
Participation in the Regional Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will be on a voluntary basis.
V. Chair and Vice - Chair.
The Chair and Vice -Chair position will rotate between the four governmental agencies in the
following order: Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley and smaller cities. The Vice -
Chair position will automatically ascend to the position of Chair after the Chair position is vacated.
VI. Term of Citizen Appointments.
There will be a maximum of two terms for the citizen -at -large positions unless these positions are
unable to be filled, than special approval by the Spokane County Commissioner, the Spokane City Council
President, the Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley and the representative of the smaller cities will be required.
VII. Term of Office.
The term of office shall be for three years with staggered terms to be determined by the Committee.
"'A City of Spokane Draft Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
VIII. Meetings.
Meeting schedules will be decided by members of the Committee and the location will be rotated
between Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley and smaller cities participating in the
Committee.
Agendas and minutes of all meetings shall be recorded in a standard format and sent to the Spokane
County Commissioner's Clerk of the Board, the City Clerk for the City of Spokane and the City Clerk for the
City of Spokane Valley for archiving. Agenda and minutes shall be made available on their websites for access
by the public.
All meetings shall be open to the public.
IX. Staffing.
Committee members will provide staff and research support as they are able.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON .2010.
`y rk
Ni
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
City of Spokane Draft Page 5 of 5
E
0 in
CL 0
4^ to
� E
W
o
c
� � y
CL 0
ems! a)
'ITNII
L3 �
N
O
0. 0
cn V)
O
? to N
W = T
Q 2
=te a.
U Z Q
H W
W Q
H Lu U
Lu
Z 0 L LL L
Lu
O
T
? N
Lu��
a =W
3: 0
U Z_ Q
Lu ~ LU LU
U F-
OaW
Z0 L
Lu
O
T
? � N
Lu D r
0
Q 2 LL
U Z Q
W Q �
U_ P: H• Lu U
Z 00 LL
LL
Lu
O
i O
N
0 T
Cl
+r Q
L '
m
0
> E
N C
O
•
L •.
LOI U
Y >
N ca
3 �
O
cv I -
-
w M 0
O
CD
N �
Z H ti
>
V
•
�o
L O
:3 N
O T
rT
� • L
C
L
0
> E
N 0
0
E
O
U U
it O
O
U)
a)
(D
�
Zi
F—
r—I
ca
U)
w 0
> ,^
V V!
3 m
C
_
L C Q'
N >
O T to
_ •= E
- Z Q a
CU LO
N ca O
CL
O N
3 �
a� s
Z H t`
0
m
C
O
N
O
AN
a� m
0
ca �
O
Q) "
Cn
U a) 0
(Z U)
a) C
w U)
3
N O O
O U) a)
3 > Z
0
C �
(D C • • •
� O
i p
U)
U � L
C/)
^, L
V/ A♦
w C
M
0 0
cn
o �
>
z
C 'O
o
L p
(0 �
Q)
Cn
L C
o
W
a)
� w
Z3 M
O O L-
L
�z
C
a) C •
Z3
� o
m
L L
O
^ O
E
W
O U
Y Oo U
O N
O C y =
O U
p CO (D O
U M 00
a) Q) CO
O- " 0- LO
O Q)
> .� Cm
m C
— U J
O
>. 4) p
a)
O L
w
U
O � —
cn O Co
C
O O (6 00
Q) a�
CT " QLn
> o Q)
> 0 0
a)
O L
E o o)
Q)
U
Y O0 U
�
0 m
O C —
0 U
O O u) CD CD
Q) (6 Q) (0
0 a L L
0 0 Q )
m Q)
— U J
o c� },
00
0
n.
!
U
i
0
r
L
Q
4
Z3
v
L
O
I'
4
i
O
3
y
U)
a)
(D
U)
l
E
70 M
C Q
U)
N
>
0
m m
L
O
E
>
>
C;)
(6
v'
0)
°'
C
O
Q
Q C
co
p
C
�
(1) y)
Q)
U)
o
0)
a)
(n
OU
�2
O
Q)
0
U
O
t =
C
-p
Q
Q)
m
0
=
^,
-
O
Q)
li!
a)
a
0
>
4)
(B E
Q)
O
X
Q E
�
-0
Q
T a)
.� cn
cm
a)
L
cu
Q)
x
(6
�-0
•
•
(D
cn
U
c�
m
L L
O
^ O
E
W
O U
Y Oo U
O N
O C y =
O U
p CO (D O
U M 00
a) Q) CO
O- " 0- LO
O Q)
> .� Cm
m C
— U J
O
>. 4) p
a)
O L
w
U
O � —
cn O Co
C
O O (6 00
Q) a�
CT " QLn
> o Q)
> 0 0
a)
O L
E o o)
Q)
U
Y O0 U
�
0 m
O C —
0 U
O O u) CD CD
Q) (6 Q) (0
0 a L L
0 0 Q )
m Q)
— U J
o c� },
00
0
n.
!
U
i
0
r
L
Q
4
Z3
v
L
O
I'
4
i
O
3
y
U)
a)
U
m m
L
cu
W
>
>
v'
0)
°'
O
U Q
Q C
co
p
C
�
(1) y)
O
a)
(n
O
�2
O
N
O
U
O
t =
C
-p
Q
Q)
m
0 -
C
=
^,
-
O
a)
li!
a)
a
0
>
ly E
Q)
o
�
x
Q
D
0
_0
Q
T a)
En
� E 'o
a)
L
cu
Q)
x
m •
�-0
•
•
(D
cn
U
c�
m
L L
O
^ O
E
W
O U
Y Oo U
O N
O C y =
O U
p CO (D O
U M 00
a) Q) CO
O- " 0- LO
O Q)
> .� Cm
m C
— U J
O
>. 4) p
a)
O L
w
U
O � —
cn O Co
C
O O (6 00
Q) a�
CT " QLn
> o Q)
> 0 0
a)
O L
E o o)
Q)
U
Y O0 U
�
0 m
O C —
0 U
O O u) CD CD
Q) (6 Q) (0
0 a L L
0 0 Q )
m Q)
— U J
o c� },
00
0
n.
!
U
i
0
r
L
Q
4
Z3
v
L
O
I'
4
i
O
3
y
U
cu
m
>
Z3
0)
°'
co
p
C
�
O
a)
(n
O
�2
O) C
L
O
N
5
Z3
o
'i p
Q)
O
U
U
C
=
-
-
O
m
0
L
Q)
U
(D
- 0
p a)
Q)
0
-
C
a)
C
v
c� E
� E 'o
a)
L
cu
Q)
x
E
:3
�-0
QT
(D
cn
c�
U
m
L L
O
^ O
E
W
O U
Y Oo U
O N
O C y =
O U
p CO (D O
U M 00
a) Q) CO
O- " 0- LO
O Q)
> .� Cm
m C
— U J
O
>. 4) p
a)
O L
w
U
O � —
cn O Co
C
O O (6 00
Q) a�
CT " QLn
> o Q)
> 0 0
a)
O L
E o o)
Q)
U
Y O0 U
�
0 m
O C —
0 U
O O u) CD CD
Q) (6 Q) (0
0 a L L
0 0 Q )
m Q)
— U J
o c� },
00
0
n.
!
U
i
0
r
L
Q
4
Z3
v
L
O
I'
4
i
O
3
y
C - 0 (1) (n Q C ()
_ -0 Q
Q) °:3 M m L — m > O — L C m O
m_ s CO C r-. U Q) O ° C N C ° C
p) RS C (0 "_ M C Q) L (a C . — m o O > L � c6 = °
° ° o o) ME m o m.� c °� °' mo M n o ° tl?
c� °'`>° 0)o >�'� �`��� Q�> �3 Ems - c :a)u
C p UJ O O LL (� 3 Q) 'O Z fn C (n C U L >' m U° Q) > p
(a m I � -O o .N a) c3a Q s L c ui O o n
a) > N C N p L .0' M C— C . 0-- a) L 0) C p) E co (a . O ri® ..�
U o m 3 C C s Q >' > >' > (a O cD U N m C U O C Q) p Cfl r l � / 0
4) a) N L Q) ++ V U L to C L Q. m m ° Y+ � C V! h 0 U) _ Q a)
Q
O W a)° Q. ' cn Q U C Y C m U > N c6 m o V� C C ° CO O) U
a) ca _� - ° > ` N 3 L ° .N c (D . Lm � a) CL) O) o W °)
C a) (n O ° C L m a) N L Q-- c E Q (a X Up _ J X
a) o U. U��, a) 0)cn C� co
C (n M +
L
_0 U) (n
(B _ a) CO C • (n U L (0 U) CJ o C Cl) . C ° C
0) (0 C m m C a) L m C. — T m O C >' L- L M_ °
C o Q�� � f co o co cLo w o U M c 0 c o O
° o ca o c U) - o E 0 L C C Q M c ? o >1 E � „
m (v ° s� > Q om °>,� m E� ° �o o v L am- V3
> a) U > m �' o o L o 0 o (n � o a) � m a) o m �
c c m a) m 0 a) >, c ° Q > U c (a ( E c a) tl3
(D �o c0) -�� °o�� E�o.Q�° 0) o a)cn�Zo � fA
Q a) m m E L a) M Q L N U Q >, �- Q o) a) c �- L L. ca a)
L �--. >, — +� . � a) M L , (6 0 — a) C m ..r C > ° o (a C CL Q) > , - 0 N C N CO (0 .0. >+ Q ( L a) C � E p m . — Q) p
U° o_ = L L Q > > m m '� +. U U O C C L) O . (II 1 .O (D 0) () m o
C a) a) N L E �) U L >, c (n c 3 L a M (d Q _ Q �n - Q O ts# tn
O C n M o N O °- C • L Q) > y� U) c L)) a) C O CD U) 0
0) ocn o'a) E� m °�'° (n N �� L E.N c (°n.o)`L° o u 0 3.L �
c ° ca c o o o c °) (a a�i L� E Q r- A X E 0 D ° x
a) o U . U � a) C� (n LL c�
c (n m
m o
° n • • • •
c N vi Q c °
Q) o � (� m L (� a) o L °
" W c c a) ° -0 p ' o (D cz > >, c (6 U >,
(a :.- f n Q c— w U ui o U pp . c ° C C o C CZ 0
� o � E ai Q�� a'� m 0 m c � 3� (n a m— — o .° � QJ
_0 ate) o oc�Q_ o o- c a)° N � o •Q
m — U - D > >Z ° U) o a) >°, c m E- a) o ., U L 5i
C m w U > C Y E U) a) C p C m E U C p —
Q W m CQ E U •0. l-- p ( n �- >, �'�• L Q a) L L Q] r 1I rt
C ° a) (n p U m (6 m a) �_ (n 7 U) C U C > m ++ N U >°
(v I N �' (a L O — N L cn C O O (0 C
Q' C p (a N > ca O Q) V) E o N Q)
(n T C (n p L (B C — C .0-- a) = a1 Q) C C 00 `
(� C i O> (� E L. > M (o U U C , o c m a) p 3 > i O] N �w!
L °E3� m M v E aca"�Q ��
a) o Q N L E° . c ° ° U >+ c 3 c m e c _ °- c'4 o a a)
>°, o in a) o a. o° m ai > N m T c a) u a) c c ° cfl (n L)
>, L (n Q U Y M U ° (D L N" a) C (E C a) U
(� N L 0) (n . L (n
U) a) o U. U 0 0) (n LL (� (a E Q (a X E U - a
� ° `� x
c �
L M
m � 3: ° _8 • • •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE
SPOKANE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Washington State Solid Waste Management Recover and
Recycling Act (RCW 70.95) Spokane County and cities with Spokane County must prepare a
Solid Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan includes the unincorporated areas of Spokane County and the cities
within Spokane County; and
WHEREAS, Spokane County held public hearings and took testimony on April 28, 2009,
and took written testimony until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 11, 2009; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of to participate in the
implementation of the Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of
That the City of hereby adopts the 2009 Update of the Spokane County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, including revisions adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners on September 15, 2009, the Resolution No. 9 -0829.
ADOPTED by the City Council this _ day of , 2009.
N0. -oRaq
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF UPDATING THE )
SPOKANE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ) RESOLUTION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.080, each county with the state of
Washington, in cooperation with the various cites located within such county, shall prepare a
coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.110, comprehensive solid waste
management plans prepared under RCW 70.95.080 shall be maintained in a current condition and
reviewed and revised periodically by counties and cities as may be required by the Washington
State Department of Ecology; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RC W 70.95.080, Spokane County and the cities
within Spokane County have by agreement entered into a collaborate approach to update the
Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant the provisions of RCW 70.95.110, Spokane County held a public
hearing on April 28, 2009 to consider public testimony and determine whether or not to adopt,
reject or adopt in a revised form a document entitled draft Spokane County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the April 28, 2009 public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners continued the public hear for the written testimony until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
May 12, 2009, after which date the Board of County Commissioners determined to set a date
for deliberation(s) with regard to the testimony in relationship to the public the draft Spokane
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners received correspondence dated May 11,
2009, from Russ Menke, Director of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, wherein he
submitted for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners corrections to the draft
Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage Plan Update. The corrections were
brought to the attention of the System Director by the Washington State Department of Ecology
and the Washington Utilities and Transportation commission and private business; and.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held deliberations on the draft
Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update on August 9,
2009 and August 27, 2009, during which deliberations the Spokane Regional Solid Waste
System provided proposed changes to the draft Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan Update, which changes were reduced to writing in an electronic
communication dated September 2, 2009; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the (1) corrections to the draft Spokane County
Page 1 of 3
Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage Plan Update submitted by Russ Menke, Director of the
Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, and the (2) proposed changes to the draft Spokane
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update, which changes were reduced to
writing in an electronic communication dated September 2, 2009, the Board determined it was
appropriate to amend Subsection 5.7 (Recommendations) of Section 5 (Recycling) as set
forth in draft Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage Plan Update to add the
following language:
Under RCW 70.95.020(7): "It is the intent of the legislature that local
government be encouraged to use the expertise of private industry
and to contract with private industry to the fullest extent possible to
carry out solid waste recovery and recycling programs."
Given this legislative intent, the System will encourage private sector
solutions to present and future recycling and waste reduction challenges
in Spokane County, including the incorporated entities that are
signatories to the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County, pursuant to the provisions RCW 70.95.080 and RCW
70.95.110, that the Board does hereby adopt the draft Spokane County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan Update as advertised for consideration at the April 28, 2009 public
hearing with the following changes:
(1) the proposed corrections submitted in a letter dated May 11, 2009 from Russ
Menke, Director of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by reference are
adopted and incorporated into the draft Spokane County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Manage Plan Update and;
(2) the changes noted in an electronic communicated dated September 2,2009 from
Suzanne Tresko to Bill Wedlake, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment
"B" are adopted and incorporated into the draft Spokane County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Manage Plan Update; and
(3) Subsection 5.7 (Recommendations) of Section 5 (Recycling), as set forth in draft
Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Manage Plan Update, is amended to
add the following language:
Under RCW 70.95.020(7): "It is the intent of the legislature that local
government be encouraged to use the expertise of private industry
and to contract with private industry to the fullest extent possible to
carry out solid waste recovery and recycling programs."
Given this legislative intent, the System will encourage private sector
solutions to present and future recycling and waste reduction challenges
in Spokane County, including the incorporated entities that are
signatories to the Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, consistent with the provisions of RCW 70.95.094, that
Page 2 of 3
the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Director is directed for forward a copy of the draft
Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update to include the corrections
and changes provided for herein to the Washington State Department of Ecology for appropriate
review and approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this L iay of 2009.
Chair
ATTEST: MARK RICHARD.
Damela Eric n / BONNIE MAGER,
Clerk of the Board
of CO�
�
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
Section 4. Source Reduction
The Plan supports careful assessment and judicial use of public funds to provide financial
assistance for waste reduction programs in meeting the State's priority of waste reduction
efforts. Free - market economy and public education should be encouraged in order to
contribute to the success of overall waste reduction and recycling programs.
The Plan endorses product stewardship as a means of promoting greater reuse of products
and materials that have residual value as an alternative to their disposal as municipal solid
waste. Finding alternative uses for waste products can reduce the volume and cost of
their disposal and contribute to the cost effectiveness of their consumption as a resource.
The complete use of toxic and hazardous substances for their intended purpose can
reduce the cost and impact of disposing of them as components of the waste stream. The
Plan strongly supports the development of public and /or private partnerships in programs
that market the reuse and recycling of select products. Examples include the reuse of
grocery bags, reselling or exchange of household items, and greater utilization of used
building materials in the construction of public infrastructure and the private housing
market.
Product Stewardship
1. Develop partnerships with private sector organizations to provide reuse and
recycling options for select products.
3. Support product stewardship efforts.
Procurement
4. Assess using purchasing power to influence markets for recovered materials.
Internal Waste Reduction Practices
6. Implement in -house waste reduction programs and practices.
Waste Reduction Education
7. Continue waste reduction education programs.
9. Assess providing recognition for waste reduction successes.
Waste Material Exchanges
10. Continue administration of waste /materials exchange.
11. Encourage private waste exchanges.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
Section 5. Recycling
The Plan supports the region's efforts in recovering recyclable material from the solid
waste stream and endorses the recycling priorities and goals established by the State of
Washington.
The Plan encourages an increased use of metrics to provide the necessary fact -based
feedback upon which continued improvement can occur and recommends regular,
recurring evaluation of existing recycling programs to determine the feasibility of adding
new materials or removing materials that are not economically feasible to recycle.
However, it should be recognized that there could be a lower net cost to recovering
recyclable materials and paying for their reentry into the commodities market or utilizing
them in another beneficial application than it would be to dispose of them as a solid
waste.
The Plan recommends continued examination of established residential recycling
methods in the interest of increasing the amount of recyclable materials that is kept out of
the waste stream and expanding the opportunity for greater participation in curbside or
drop -off collection, particularly in rural areas. Simplicity is often the key to successful
public participation in any substantive program. Therefore, modified alternative
collection systems should be further examined as a potential means to increase residential
recycling rates for both urban and rural areas.
The Plan recommends continued promotion of private efforts to further divert recyclable
materials from commercial sources. Under RCW 70.95.020(7): "It is the intent of the
legislature that local government be encouraged to use the expertise of private industry
and to contract with private industry to the fullest extent possible to carry out solid waste
recovery and recycling programs." Given this legislative intent, the System will
encourage private sector solutions to present and future recycling and waste reduction
challenges in Spokane County, including the incorporated entities that are signatories to
the Plan. Contracted recycling should be considered either in lieu of or in addition to
public recycling collection programs. Both public institutions and private enterprises
could increase recycling through the establishment of a food -waste recycling program.
Additionally, large public events and special venues should offer greater opportunities for
recycling through increased and more convenient placement of containers for collection.
Residential Recycling
Continue to strive to satisfy the State's priorities for recycling.
2. Periodically evaluate existing recycling programs to determine the feasibility of
adding new materials or removing materials that are no longer economically feasible to
collect.
3. Monitor and improve public education efforts to maintain the current success as well
as increase the amounts of materials diverted for recycling and composting.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
4. Monitor and respond to Washington's electronic waste recycling law ESSB 6428.
5. Perform study on costs and benefits of multi- stream and other curbside recycling
systems. Use results to determine feasibility of changing curbside recycling systems
from current three -sort system.
6. Assess voluntary curbside or drop -off recycling collection programs in rural areas.
Provide results to collectors and rural jurisdictions.
8. Evaluate the current residential recycling system for potential improvements that will
increase diversion at the lowest cost with the highest effectiveness.
Commercial Recycling
10. Continue to support and encourage private efforts to divert recyclable materials from
commercial sources.
11. Continue to encourage non - residential recycling through local ordinances, policies,
procedures, incentives, technical assistance, and recognition programs.
12. Encourage food waste management by the commercial sector.
Composting
15. Expand yard waste collection efforts, including construction of a local compost
facility or other yard debris management systems.
Public Recycling
17. Develop program to facilitate recycling at public venues and events.
Section 6. Collection
The Plan recommends that additional means be assessed to improve the solid waste
collection process. The use of incentive rates should be considered to encourage
increased recycling and waste reduction. An example is the "Pay as You Throw"
program where the rates are structured so that those who dispose of more are charged
more than those with lower waste volumes. Alternative collection strategies such as co-
collection and/or frequency of service should also be considered.
The option of mandatory collection should be carefully assessed. More centralized
recyclable collection locations for rural households would support optional self - hauling
and contribute to greater waste reduction. The Plan does not promote mandatory
commercial recycling, but does support a free - market economy with a progressive and
participative business sector combined with public education to contribute to Ecology's
priorities of waste management.
2. Assess changing service levels to capture more households.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
3. Assessing contracting for recycling.
4. Assess alternative collection strategies.
5. Assess mandatory collection.
Section 7. Transfer Systems
The Plan recommends the development of criteria for determining if the existing Spokane
Regional Solid Waste System owned transfer stations need to be upgraded. The need for
additional Spokane Regional Solid Waste System owned and /or privately owned transfer
stations operating within the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System should also be
carefully evaluated. The tonnage capacity of the existing System transfer stations is
adequate, but the queuing space for self -haul vehicles at the Valley Transfer Station is
inadequate. The limited queuing space available at the Valley Transfer Station increases
the time required to process through the facility which can serve as an economic
disincentive to commercial activities sensitive to time factors and costs.
The Plan strongly encourages regional planning leading to the establishment of locations
for staging and processing of large surge volumes of debris that result from major
disasters. Potential incidents for the Spokane area realistically include volcanic
eruptions, wind storms, firestorms, ice storms, railroad derailment, and/or terrorist attack.
Pre - identification of staging areas and the establishment of contingency handling
processes, including potential contracted services, will ultimately reduce the impact of
such disasters, increase the public safety during response /cleanup operations, and lessen
the overall impact on our region.
1. Develop criteria for determining if the existing transfer stations need to be upgraded,
including assessing improvements to operational efficiencies.
2. Assess needs for additional transfer stations.
3. Establish locations for staging and storage of natural disaster debris.
4. Offer reuse areas at System facilities if costs, logistics, and demand for the service
justify implementing a program.
Section 8. Energy Recovery
Provided that the WTE facility remains an element of the region's solid waste
management strategy, the Plan recommends that plant operations must remain responsive
enough to be able to meet future State and Federal air emissions requirements through the
application of maximum achievable controls technology in a manner that is deemed cost
effective and affordable.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
The federal government considers municipal solid waste to be a renewable energy source.
The electricity produced from steam, generated as a result of the mass burn process, is a
clean, easily distributed form of energy that contributes to the sustainability of our
community. The revenue generated from the sale of the recovered energy helps offset the
cost of the overall waste management system and allows for the subsequent disposal of
solid waste in a manner that is less harmful to our environment. Additionally, there
remains a substantial amount of low -grade process heat after the steam turbine electrical
generation process that might be sold as district heat in nearby development of the
Spokane Airport Business Park.
The Plan recommends the careful assessment of expansion of the WTE Plant, specifically
the addition of a third boiler, including considering the impacts from regional solid waste
generation volumes. However, the capital bonds required to pay for the initial
construction of the WTE Plant will be completely paid off by 2011. This will
significantly lower the annual cash flow requirements of the system and perhaps allow
for a substantive reduction in tipping fees. The plant has been well maintained and with
continued maintenance, has many years of useful life remaining. Therefore, it makes
sense to continue operations under the conditions stated above and to take advantage of
this opportunity to lower overall system costs and /or tipping fees to competitive levels.
The Plan strongly encourages assessing all options that can reduce the cost of plant
operations to be considered, including in -house operation, contracted operations, or its
sale to a private entity.
The Plan also recommends consideration be given for additional waste processing on the
receiving side in order to remove more material that is not burnable and to increase the
recovery of recyclable materials. Similarly, the Plan recommends the pursuit of post -
processing technologies for the substantial amount of residual ash that is a byproduct of
the mass burn process. Possible applications include encouraging the use of bottom ash
as a component of non - structural fill for roads, parking lots, and building sites. Possible
uses for the fly ash might be as a component in cementitious construction materials as a
substitute for cement. Additional waste processing at the WTE Plant and the system
transfer stations can further increase recycling rates and improve the overall performance
of the plant.
Finally, the Plan encourages the local consumption of the WTE Plant's energy production
to help satisfy the area's needs, particularly for public infrastructure that is more heavily
energy dependent, such as wastewater treatment or an electrified regional light rail
system.
1. Maintain the WTE Facility to continue operations after bond retirement.
2. Assess issues and parameters of adding a third boiler to the WTE Facility.
Evaluate front -end processing of waste to improve recovery of material prior to
incineration.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
4. Assess development of Malloy Prairie landfill site for ash disposal.
6. Assess combining the ash and bypass disposal contract with the WTE operating
contract instead of renewing the existing contract.
8. Assess sale of the WTE Facility to a private company or public energy utility.
9. Assess sale of Malloy Prairie landfill site.
Section 9. Landfills
The Waste to Energy facility cannot handle all of the waste generated within Spokane
County. A large component of the waste stream is non - burnable waste that does not lend
itself to mass burn technology. Additionally, the process itself results in residual ash that
currently is transported for disposal in the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat
County, Washington. Therefore, until other technologies and/or waste disposal strategies
become more available and affordable, landfill disposal will remain an element of the
region's overall waste management strategy.
The Plan recommends assessing multiple transportation modes for out -of- county landfill
disposal of waste in order to reduce the vulnerability and expense associated with any
single transport mode. Contracts should be competitively based on cost, reliability, and
responsiveness with respect to meeting the needs of Spokane County.
The Plan also recognizes the potential benefits of in- county landfill disposal, in part to
provide for contingency disposal capacity when bypass solid waste cannot be sent to an
out of county landfill, as well as in the event of civil or natural disasters that could result
in a large surge of solid waste requiring immediate disposal. Any additional landfills
should be sited within Spokane County with the greatest amount of scrutiny and
consideration for the environment, in particular, the regional aquifer.
The Plan recommends that all post - closure costs for landfills that exist within Spokane
County, and for which the public has a financial liability, be fully considered for
inclusion within the overall regional waste management system. Taking a long -term
approach in addressing the financial obligations presented by past and present landfill
operations will be in the best interest of Spokane County, both fiscally and
environmentally.
The Plan supports the continued development of alternative waste disposal technologies.
The Plan is very supportive of monitoring and assessing gas extraction and energy
recovery technologies that can further reduce the potential environmental impacts of
landfills while adding to the overall sustainability of the region.
1. Investigate alternative transportation modes for waste transferred to an out -of-
County landfill.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
2. Expand the Northside Landfill MSW cell for contingency/bypass use.
3. Examine post - closure care funding for County- and City of Spokane -owned
landfills.
4. Monitor developments in alternative processing technologies for municipal solid
waste.
5. Assess development of an in- County MSW landfill for use after 2011, either public
or privately owned and operated.
6. Assess long haul of municipal solid waste out of the County.
7. Assess using both the WTE Facility and out -of- County landfill for disposal of MSW.
10. Identify needs and costs to remediate closed landfills in the County (including
private landfills).
Section 10. Miscellaneous Waste
The Plan supports public education as it relates to miscellaneous waste handling and
disposal. Specifically, efforts to promote awareness among individual homeowners
regarding the proper identification, handling, and disposal procedures for asbestos
containing materials should be included as part of the System's public outreach program.
Similarly, the Plan supports continued coordination with the Spokane Regional Health
District to produce and distribute educational materials related to biomedical wastes. The
Plan emphasizes the need for continued System involvement in the planning and
execution of local, state, and federal emergency response plans, particularly as they
involve agricultural or other miscellaneous wastes discussed in this chapter.
The Plan recommends additional research and investigation of alternative uses for the ash
generated as a by- product of operating the Waste to Energy facility. Currently, disposal
of the resultant ash by rail to a regional landfill is a major cost component of plant
operations. This recommendation supports a careful and thorough examination of the
issue in the hope that better information will ultimately lead to lower disposal costs for
the citizens of Spokane County, a further reduction of waste volumes, increased
sustainability of our community development, and continued protection of our
environment.
The Plan supports the diversion of yard debris in biosolids composting programs, but
funding sources should come from outside of System or solid waste grant funds. The
Plan recommends the existing programs related to contaminated soils, recycling of
electronics, foundry operations, paper sludge, tires, and universal waste continue to be
managed by the private sector. The Plan further encourages that, wherever appropriate,
the private sector be allowed to recycle and treat other miscellaneous waste streams as
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
they exist or become established.
Special Waste
1. In Spokane County, any generator wishing to manage hazardous wastes as special
wastes should consult with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
and, as appropriate, solicit the services of qualified waste management contractors
for handling and managing the wastes.
Agricultural Waste
2. Develop emergency response plans regarding agricultural waste specific to available
resources and operations and in coordination with local, state, and federal agencies.
3. Continue to support existing federal, state, and other agency policies and procedures
that have been developed for the management of animal carcasses that have been
diagnosed or suspected of being carriers of an infectious disease.
Asbestos Waste
4. Continue to educate homeowners about proper identification of asbestos - containing
materials and proper handling and disposal methods.
5. The System should continue to work with SCAPCA to develop more comprehensive
information and outreach strategies. Information is available on the SCAPCA
website www.scapca.org
Ash from Waste -to- Energy Facility
6. Continue to monitor research and investigate alternatives for ash utilization. The
handling of ash residue must be protective of public, worker, and environmental
health and safety. Substantive changes to the handling of the ash residue shall be
accompanied by an early and extensive public process consistent with WDOE permit
requirements. Any ash recycling program must be preceded by extensive research
into recycled ash, with documentation that no significant harmful effects exist from
the recycled ash products before a project is undertaken. Any notification of permit
changes shall be copied to the governing bodies over the SRSWS.
Biomedical Waste
7. Continue to coordinate with SRDH in the distribution of educational materials for
correct management of medical waste generated by residents.
8. Continue to plan and coordinate with the appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies regarding emergency response plans involving human or animal diseases.
Biosolids and Septage
9. Continue to monitor potential changes and examine other alternatives for future
disposal, if necessary.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
10. Funding sources should be pursued for existing biosolids composting facilities that
need to replace aged and worn -out equipment, to improve system processing, and to
provide reliable operations.
Contaminated Soils
11. Continue to allow the private sector to manage and dispose of contaminated soils in
permitted facilities.
12. Where appropriate, support and encourage the private sector to treat contaminated
soils to minimize the amounts landfilled.
Electronic Waste
13. Support e -waste recycling activities within the private sector.
Foundry Operations
14. Continue to allow the private sector to manage and dispose of foundry wastes.
15. Management practices should be encouraged to reduce and recycle these wastes,
when feasible.
Paper Sludge
16. The County and cities should continue to allow the private sector to appropriately
manage and dispose of its paper sludge wastes.
17. Management practices to reduce and recycle these wastes should be supported and
encouraged, when feasible.
Tires
18. Encourage County and city purchasing programs for recycled tire products.
19. Continue to promote and implement County and city fleet programs to reduce tire
waste.
20. Continue to include information on reducing tire waste and recycled tire produces in
public education programs.
21. Assess use of waste tires as feedstock for Waste to Energy Facility during seasonal
low - volume periods.
Universal Wastes
22. Continue to allow small quantity generators to bring UW to existing Small Quantity
Generator (SQG) waste collection events for proper disposal.
23. Continue to promote the private sector to appropriately manage universal waste for
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
recycling.
Section 11. Construction, Demolition, Landclearing, and Inert
The Plan supports continued public outreach and education on options for the waste
reduction, recovery, and disposal of construction, demolition, landclearing, and inert
waste (CDL /I). Based on the waste stream analysis provided as an appendix to this plan,
CDL/I represents the greatest opportunity for further waste reduction through the
potential recovery of recyclable materials. Therefore, the Plan strongly supports
considerations for development of in- county CDL/I recycling facilities. The Plan
supports the identified need for emergency storage, handling, and disposal capacity as
called for in regional disaster management plans.
The Plan recommends the development of voluntary waste diversion specifications.
Mandatory diversion specifications should be carefully assessed in order that they do not
impose unnecessary costs compared to the benefits.
1. Continue to provide outreach and education on options for the waste reduction or
recovery of CDL /I.
2. Assess development of CDL/I waste diversion specifications for County or municipal
projects.
3. Assess use of recycled content material specifications for County or municipal
construction and engineering projects.
4. Assess development of a CDL and Inert waste diversion ordinance.
5. Support markets for CDL/I by promoting reuse and recovery.
6. Evaluate financial incentives, public /private partnerships, and policies to encourage
recovery/recycling of CDL/I materials.
7. Continue with development of a Disaster Management Plan for emergency disposal
activities that coordinates with federal, state, and local agencies' emergency plans.
8. Assess options regarding development of in- County CDL recovery facilities.
Section 12. Moderate Risk Waste
The Plan recommends continuing with the System's current public education program
related to moderate risk waste. Additional opportunities for moderate risk waste
education, training, collection, or processing programs should be carefully assessed to
weigh the costs with the benefits of the programs. Expenditure of limited resources must
always be appropriately scrutinized and prioritized. The Plan encourages the system to
continuously look for ways to improve and monitor the effectiveness of its programs.
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
Household and Public Education
1. Continue public education programs to reduce the generation of moderate risk waste.
2. Continue to provide public education on alternative products.
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
3. Assess using mobile collection centers to target rural areas.
4. Assess providing on -call collection services for moderate risk waste.
4a. Continue Household Hazardous Waste collect ion at permanent System facilities.
Mercury Waste Education and Outreach
5. Continue to provide education and outreach to residents on the risks associated with
mercury in the waste stream and to promote the availability of HHW collection sites
and recycling businesses for alternate methods of processing along with proper
handling and disposal of this waste.
Business Technical Assistance
6. Develop and distribute purchasing guidelines for re- refined lubricating oils.
7. Continue to provide business collection assistance for MRW.
8. Maintain enforcement efforts by appropriate enforcement agencies.
Section 13. Administration and Enforcement
The Plan recommends maintaining support for required regulatory and enforcement
activities. The Plan supports cooperative efforts in reducing illegal dumping throughout
the County and the abatement of solid waste nuisances on public and private property.
The Plan supports high level collaboration and representation by all affected jurisdictions
within Spokane County regarding regional solid waste management and disposal
administrative issues, both before and after interlocal agreements expire or are renewed.
Careful evaluations of all administrative designs should be conducted in an open,
transparent atmosphere to clearly identify the benefits, responsibilities, and commitments
of each option.
From a governance and administrative perspective, the Plan recommends the current
system be restructured into a system that is governed by a board comprised of
membership that is proportionally representative of the overall region. Other regional
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
governance boards already exist and so this would be consistent with other programs
managed on a regional basis. Examples of existing boards are the Regional Public Health
Board, Airport Board, Spokane County Air Pollution and Control Authority Board, and
the Spokane Transit Authority Board. Suggested representation would be three elected
officials from the City of Spokane, two elected officials from the City of Spokane Valley,
two elected officials from the Association of Small Cities, and two elected Spokane
County Commissioners.
Among options for administrative design, the Liaison Board could be eliminated or
considered as the basis for establishment of a regional governing board with real
authority for establishing policy and making final decisions in regard to System
management and budgetary issues that are regional in nature.
The SWAC recommends that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, under any revised
system of governance, continue to serve in its role as an advisory body to the new board
of authority. Their input could be of greater weight than the current reporting structure in
which they report to the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, that body could
consider the creation of two sub - committees to help in the formulation of advice
regarding (1) policy matters, and (2) technical matters.
SWAC further strongly supports that practical matters along with potential legislative
actions to authorize the above recommended system dictate that the transition to a
regional governance structure be planned for implementation to coincide with either the
expiration of existing interlocal agreements or at such time as the existing agreements can
be renegotiated. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee, however, recommends that a
new governance system be implemented in the most expeditious manner reasonably
achievable, but not later than 2011.
Because of the legal and political complexities involved in understanding and designing
regional solid waste disposal systems, the Plan recommends further study and legal
expertise to flesh out advantages and challenges to these or any other designs. The
Liaison Board could facilitate the formation of a Regional Solid Waste Planning
Committee to study and discuss issues and options regarding the future structure of solid
waste management and disposal administration within Spokane County, as described in
Alternative 6.
6. Regional Solid Waste Planning Committee
The Liaison Board should establish a Regional Solid Waste Planning Subcommittee
within 90 -days of final Plan approval comprised of County and municipal jurisdictions,
Fairchild Air Force Base, and appropriate agencies and stakeholders, to discuss and
further research options for future regional solid waste management administrative
structures, including but not limited to:
• Liaison Board assumes administration of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste
EXHIBIT 1 -5
Summary of Recommendations
System.
• Transfer of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System administration to the Board
of County Commissioners.
• Transfer of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System administration to a
Regional Board made up of countywide stakeholders.
• Spokane Regional Solid Waste System.
• Solid Waste Disposal District.
• Solid Waste Disposal District with an Executive Advisory Committee.
• Independent Regional Authority.
• Municipal- Operated Disposal Facility(ies).
• Metropolitan Municipal Corporation.
7. Assess a solid waste program tipping fee rebate.
03/24/2010
Spokane County Sheriff's Office
Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich
Detention Services Project
A enda
• Redefining the system
— Bricks
— Non — Bricks
• Present status
—The numbers and why
— The plan with the assessment tool — what that
means for all of us
• Regionalization
1
03/24/2010
Redefining the System
Horizontal Vs. Vertical
Vertical Costs
• Phase 1- Year 2014
$265 Million
• Phase 2 — beyond 2035
$146 Million
• Total Proiect Cost
$411 Million
Horizontal Costs
Phase 1- Year 2014
$229 Million
r Phase 2 — beyond 2035
$106 Millior
F, Total Project Cost
$335 Millior
Flexibility in Expansion
Vertical Tower
• Cost to build additional tower $
146 Million
• Requires a bond to construct
Phase 2
Horizontal
• Build pod at a time at $21 Million
• Build revenue base to support
future expansions
• Potentially no more bonds — can
take us out 20 or more years to
2072
2
03/24/2010
Staffing
Vertical Tower
12 hour shift = Decrease
$300,000
8 hour = Increase of
S2.0 Million
Horizontal
12 hour shift = Increase of
$1,200,000
8 hour shift = Increase of
$3.2 Million
Delta 12 vs. 8 = $2 Million
Delta 12 vs. 8 = $ 2,300,000
Vertical vs. Horizontal DELTA is an average of $1.3 million difference in staffing
and M&O
Comparative Bonding Scenarios
• Phase 1 Difference = $54,304,851
• Phase 2 Difference = $59,242,110
Total: $113,546,961
3
03/24/2010
Essential Public Facility
• The large difference in construction costs of a vertical structure
verses a horizontal structure necessitated a new Essential Public
Facility Siting Process (EPF) in 2009
• The top three sites, will be presented to the BoCC in the end of
March and top site selected in the beginning of April
Essential Public Facility Siting Process
Presently:
• Published Qualitative Report 12/30/10
• Conducted a Public Workshop 1/28/10
• Weighted Analysis available after meeting with
BoCC over top six sites
• Top three Sites presented to BoCC last week of
March
• Final site selected first week of April
0
03/24/2010
10 Sites Being Evaluated
• McFarland Road — west of Hayford Road \ Airway Heights \ Spokane
International Airport
• McFarlane Road — at Larsen Road \ Private
• Geiger Blvd. — Thomas Mallen Road \ Private
• Flint and HWY 2 — on Campus Drive \ Private
• Medical Lake Road — west of 190 at Medical Lake Exit \ Private
• Gravel Pit — at Sprague and Russel \ Central Pre -Mix
• Spokane County Campus \ Spokane County
• Tschirley Road — Spokane Valley \ Spokane County
• Flora Road — WSDOT near Scraps \ WSDOT
• Appleway — at Liberty Lake \ Private
EPF Sites Combined
Scores
Site
183
76
259
1
163
91
254
2
157
88
245
3
161
72
233
4
155
72
227
5
166
60
226
6
core of top
ten is Simpson
& Applewa na 212
5
03/24/2010
Federal Community Programs
• Project Safe Neighborhoods
— Program geared to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and other
prohibited persons
— Aggressive Prosecution & the firearm crime enforcement (FACE)
coalition made up of city, county, state, and doc agencies — combat gun
crime
• Project safe childhood
— Designed to prosecute those who target our children on the internet or
otherwise
— Produce, transmit, or possess child pornography as well as the arrest of
interstate or overseas
— Partnered with Education Service District 101 to produce training videos
for educators, parents, school administrators
Federal Community Programs -Cont
• Sobriety Treatment and Education Program
am
(STEP)
— Federal Supervised Released Inmates
— Program focused on Drug and Alcohol free participation, healthy living
arrangements, and steady employment
— Successful participation can earn the offender a one year reduction in their
sentence.
• The Badge
— Partnered with KXLY to air scams or brands of crime to the citizens of Spokane
— Focused on identity theft, credit card theft, counterfeiting, on -line advance fees,
and lottery scams
— Also entire show dedicated to internet child luring
X
03/24/2010
Non — Bricks
Early Case Resolution
- Expediting cases
- Reducing transports to
court
- dropping the length of stay
in jail
Pra_trial
Mental Health
— Only Jail in Washington with
certified treatment programs
— Mental health committee
involving L /E, Courts,
Community Services, and
BoCC
— Designing Risk assessment
tool
Reentry Programs
— Pilot project
— Sheriffs Work Program
Non - Bricks Impact on the Bricks
• Reviewing the project numbers
— Bookings down 1 %
• 23,104 in 2008 to 22,828 in 2009 - (Law changes)
— Average Length of stay down 8%
• 17.8 days in 2008 to 15.5 days 2009 - (ECR)
— Average Daily Population down
• 1126 in 2008 to 970 in 2009 (ECR - Pilot - Sheriff work
program)
7
03/24/2010
Non - Bricks Impact on the Bricks
• Possible reduction in the voiect costs
— Construction — less chance of overbuilding
— Operational Costs (working backward from projected
8 million toward a reduced scaled project)
Decreased Population Allows Flexibility
• Reevaluate staff to inmate ratios vs. actual space capacity and best
practices
• Implement State of Washington Static Risk Instrument or the
Washington State Offenders Accountability Act Risk Tool
• Shift the paradigm from determining offender program eligibility from
Objective Jail Classification System (designed to select housing
assignments within the jail) to the risk assessment tool which
determines risk and propensity to reoffend
• At the completion shift the workforce to meet the appropriate shift in
the offender management
E:3
03/24/2010
What Does This Mean To You?
Shifting the offender population into three categories
— Very High Risk — Those that need to be housed in jail — (Includes
the Violent Offender non DV)
— High to Moderate Risk — Those that are appropriate in custody
programs - Tool helps us target the right kind of programs
— Low Risk — Those appropriate for out of custody programming
THIS MEANS A SAVINGS TO ALL OF US IN HOUSING
AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BY MATCHING THE
OFFENDER TO PROPER SUPERVISION LEVEL
Regionalization
Develop an offender supervision continuum based on risk
for the Community
• Closed custody jail
• In- custody program with step down component and
reentry focus with appropriate continuum
• Out of custody day- reporting center and work crew
programs
03/24/2010
1
03/24/2010
Bond Question
XeTZTIT�1 Eel 7 .. . N :. 1.I
—April 2011
• Commitment
— Spokane County wide support from
Government Agencies
—With respect to local elected officials and their
citizens and voters, we are asking that you
support us by allowing us a non competing
bond measure for April 2011
Why change the bond date!
• Tough choice to postpone to April but here are the
reasons:
— With respect to other entities with very important levies
and bond — we will extend the opportunity to educate the
public
— The cost and scope of the project is dropping, we are
waiting for the dust to settle
— We want to hire the public information consultant to craft
the message
— The project is a community project and should not become
entangled in the November elections
`E
03/24/2010
Conclusion
Questions ?
WWW.Spokanesheriff.org
11
M
LU
. ^1
W
V,
0
r
o
cu
a cn
7 x x
co ,. l = w � T
T O C
> � � � a c
Llj
C
m o >_ m y m m m
d U
.Fd N J N
t S '�//1� 3 m m
i 3 vJ I o E co U cn
Q- F O T
.. .... M ,.._ .. O C N C 'O
C o o is
N I U
i c O c m J d T
c
m c U _ c a
` ry ` N M - U Y L O N
O)
U N U' C O 0 y d
�, .. U' Li 2 CD
Iq
LO J
`y � N
Draft Interlocal
By
Todd Mielke
February 26, 2010
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT
OF
COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION(DENEFIT DISTRICT
AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 36.73 RCW
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made by and among Spokane County, a political
subdivision of the Washington State, having offices for the transaction of business at West 1116
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as "County," the City of
Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as
the "SPOKANE," the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue,
Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "SPOKANE VALLEY," City of
Medical Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at 124 S. Lefevre P.O. Box 130, 99019, hereinafter referred to as "MEDICAL LAKE," the City
of Cheney, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at General Office, 609 Second, 99004, hereinafter referred to as "CHENEY," the City of
Liberty Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at City Hall, c/o P.O. Box 370, 99019, hereinafter referred to as "LIBERTY LAKE ", the City of
Airway Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at City Hall, 1208 South Lundstrom, c/o P.O. Box 969, 99001, hereinafter referred to as
"AIRWAY HEIGHTS," the City of Deer Park, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, 316 Crawford Avenue, c/o Box F, 99006,
hereinafter referred to as "DEER PARK ", the Town of Millwood, a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 9103 East Fredrick, 99206, hereinafter
referred to "MILLWOOD ", the Town of Rockford, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
having offices for the transaction of business as 20 West Emma, c/o P.O. Box 49, Rockford, Washington
99030, hereinafter referred to as "ROCKFORD ", the Town of Spangle, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 115 West Second Street, c/o P.O.
Box 147, Spangle, Washington 99031, hereinafter referred to as "SPANGLE ", the Town of Fairfield, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 218
East Main Street, c/o P.O. Box 334, Fairfield, Washington 99012, hereinafter referred to as
"FAIRFIELD ", Town of Latah, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for
the transaction of business at 108 E. Market, Latah, Washington 99018, hereinafter referred to as
"LATAH ", and the Town of Waverly, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having
offices for the transaction of business at 255 N. Commercial, Waverly, Washington, 99039, hereinafter
referred to as "WAVERLY ", jointly hereinafter referred to along as the "PARTIES."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Spokane County and jurisdictions located within Spokane County acknowledge that
providing transportation infrastructure is one of the primary functions of local government and that
current revenues for maintaining the existing transportation infrastructure are not keeping pace with the
costs of such maintenance; and
Page 1 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
WHEREAS, Spokane County and jurisdictions located within Spokane County further
acknowledge the need to construct `projects of regional significance' that impact the transportation
system of the entire region and recognize the lack of resources available to fund such projects; and
WHEREAS, federal and state funding for local transportation maintenance and construction
projects has been declining and becoming less predictable. Local jurisdictions recognize the need to rely
more heavily on local funding for local projects; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020, the legislative authority of a county
or city (means city or town) may establish a transportation benefit district within the county or city area
for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation
improvements within the district that are consistent with any existing state, regional, and local
transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The
transportation improvements shall be owned by the county of jurisdiction if located in an unincorporated
area, by the city of jurisdiction if located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases where the
transportation improvements are or become a state highway; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020, a transportation benefit district may
include area within an entire county or area within a jurisdiction, or area within jurisdictions if the
legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction has agreed to the inclusion of its jurisdiction as
provided in an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. Provided, further, under
RCW 82.80.140, an interlocal agreement for the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit
district shall become effective when it is approved by the county and sixty (60) percent of the cities
representing seventy -five (75) percent of the population of the cities within the county; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020 and RCW 36.73.065, the PARTIES
desire to enter into an interlocal agreement to establish a countywide transportation benefit district as
provided for in chapter 36.73 RCW.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and as
authorized under chapter 36.73 RCW, the PARTIES do mutually agree as follows:
SECTION NO. 1: PURPOSE
The PARTIES desire to pursue a joint transportation funding mechanism whereby any revenues collected
shall be utilized for (1) the operation, preservation and maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure
and (2) the acquisition, construction, improvement of transportation improvements under the control of the
PARTIES, and (3) the construction of transportation improvements `of regional significance'.
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which the PARTIES agree to the
establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district as provided for in chapter 36.73 RCW. The
Agreement sets forth, among other matters, how the district shall be governed and administrative functions
carried out, how any revenues collected shall be distributed, and the process for determining transportation
improvements of regional significance' and prioritizing their funding.
SECTION NO. 2: ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT.
The PARTIES hereby request and agree, consistent with RCW 36.73.050, to the establishment of a
countywide transportation benefit district to be known as the "Spokane Regional Transportation Benefit
Page 2 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
District" (SRTBD) through the adoption of an ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane
County.
The boundaries of SRTBD shall be co- extensive with the boundaries of Spokane County and shall include
the area of all incorporated cities and towns within Spokane County as well as all unincorporated area within
Spokane County.
The PARTIES agree that the governing body of the SRTBD shall be the same as the governing board of the
designated federal metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as provided for by USC Title 23, Section 134
(Governing Board). The Governing Body shall have the same powers as granted to the governing board of a
regional transportation benefit district as set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW or otherwise agreed to by the
PARTIES.
SECTION NO. 3: ADMINISTRATION AND DESIGNATION OF FISCAL AGENT
For purposes of this Agreement, the MVO shall have the powers of a transportation benefit district as set forth
in chapter 36.73 RCW.
The PARTIES agree that the fiscal agent of the SRTBD shall be the MPO. As such, the revenues from all
taxes, fees, charges, or tolls enacted by the SRTBD or revenues received by the SRTBD shall be received,
held and distributed by the MPO as provided in this Agreement or otherwise agreed by the PARTIES.
SECTION NO. 4: DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION MPROVEMENTS.
The PARTIES agree and understand the purpose of the transportation benefit district is (1) to assist in
funding the operation, maintenance, and preservation of existing transportation infrastructure and (2) to
provide funding for the acquisition, construction and improvement of transportation improvements within
the boundaries of the transportation benefit district that are consistent with existing state, regional, and/or
local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonable foreseeable congestion levels.
The terminology "transportation improvement" is defined in RCW 36.73.015(3) to mean "...a project
contained in the transportation plan of the state or a regional transportation planning organization". In
selecting a transportation improvement, the SRTBD shall consider those factors set forth in RCW 36.73.020
which include "(j) Other criteria, as adopted by the governing body ".
For the purpose of this Agreement, and as a condition of the establishment of the SRTBD, the terminology
"transportation improvement" shall include those transportation projects listed as part of the regional
transportation improvement program (TIP) as required by USC Title 23, Section 134 and administered by
the designated metropolitan planning organization (NIPO). Additionally the terminology "transportation
improvement" shall include those improvement `of regional significance' addressed in Section No. 5
hereinafter.
Transportation improvements acquired, constructed, or improved under this Agreement shall be owned by the
County if located in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, or by the city or town within which they are
located or by the state of Washington in cases were the transportation improvement is on or becomes a part of
the state highway system.
Page 3 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
SECTION NO. 5: EUPROVEMENTS `OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE'
Transportation improvements of `regional significance' are those transportation related investments that
benefit two or more jurisdictions within the SRTBD, benefit the economic health of the region, or enhance
the state or federal transportation system within the boundaries of the SRTBD.
Transportation improvements of `regional significance' may include investments for vehicular traffic, freight
mobility, public transportation, passenger rail, or for bicycle - pedestrian accommodations. They may be for
either a single transportation mode or multi - modal.
PARTIES shall submit requests for a determination as to whether or not a transportation investment is `of
regional significance to the SRTBD. The SRTBD Governing Board shall determine whether a transportation
investment is of `regional significance' and prioritize the funding and construction timeline of the investment
based upon the available funding. Transportation improvements of `regional significance' shall be listed as
part of the regional transportation improvement program (TIP) as required by USC Title 23, Section 134 and
administered by the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
SECTION NO. 6: TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REVENUES
The PARTIES agree that the SRTBD Governing Board may utilize (i) any single or combination of revenues
sources as authorized in chapter 36.73 RCW (ii) any other local government transportation revenue
authorized by the state legislature and/or (iii) State and/or Federal grant in aid program to fund the operation,
maintenance, and preservation of existing transportation infrastructure and to provide funding for the
acquisition, construction and improvement of transportation improvements to include those of `regional
significance' as provided for in this Agreement recognizing that some revenues sources are subject to voter
approval or may be implemented by action of the SRTBD Board.
However, the PARTIES further agree that once the transportation benefit district is formed, no individual
jurisdiction that is party to this interlocal agreement shall impose of mandatory impact fee on any
construction for the purposes of transportation mitigation.
SECTION NO. 7: DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES
All revenues received by the SRTBD shall be combined and distributed as follows:
Seventy percent (70 %) of all revenues shall be used by the PARTIES for the operation, preservation, and
maintenance of existing transportation investments within the boundaries of the SRTBD. Additionally,
individual PARTIES may utilize their respective share of revenues to fund the acquisition and/or construction
and/or improvement of transportation investments within their jurisdictions. The seventy percent (70 %)
distribution shall be based upon a combined population - vehicle miles traveled formula (formula). The
formula takes each PARTIES proportionate share of population as published in the Office of Financial
Management's (OFM) Official April I' Population Estimate and each PARTIES proportionate share of
vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on the Federal Functional Classification System as published by the designated
MPO's regional travel demand model. Population and vehicle miles travel shall be equally weighted in the
revenue distribution calculation.
Thirty percent (30 %) of all revenues shall be utilized to fund fully, or in part, transportation improvements of
`regional significance' as defined and determined in Section No. 5.
Page 4 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
SECTION NO. 8: DURATION
The PARTIES agree, as provided for in RCW 82.80.140, that the provisions of this Agreement will become
effective when the Agreement is executed by the COUNTY and sixty (60) percent of the cites representing
seventy -five (75) percent of the population of the cites within Spokane County. The terminology "city" shall
also include town. The population of the cities shall be determined based on the official records of the
Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development.
Upon the effective date of this AGREEMENT, the COUNTY will by Ordinance, establish the SRTBD
consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and chapter 36.73 RCW. The Ordinance establishing the
SRTBD shall provide that it shall automatically dissolve when all indebtedness of the district has been retired
and anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. As such, this Agreement shall terminate when the
SRTBD is automatically dissolved as provided for herein or as provided by law.
SECTION NO. 9: GENERAL TERMS
This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there
are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or
additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in
writing, executed by the PARTIES.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns.
In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that
they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement.
This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity
or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts
of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and
delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same.
SECTION NO. 10: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES
A. PURPOSE
See Section No. 1 above.
B. DURATION
See Section No. 8 above.
C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS
See Section Nos. 2 and 3 above.
Page 5 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION
D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
See provisions above.
E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED
The PARTIES, except the COUNTY shall file this Agreement with their City Clerks. The
COUNTY shall place this Agreement on its web site.
F. FINANCING.
See Section Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above.
G. TERMINATION.
See Section No. 8 above.
H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION.
Not applicable or see Section No. 2 above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and
year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED:
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson,
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
BY:
Assistant City Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON
MARK RICHARD, Chair
BONNIE MAGER, Vice -Chair
TODD MIELKE, Commissioner
CITY OF SPOKANE:
BY:
Its:
(Title)
Page 6 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form only:
Acting City Attorney
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form only:
Acting City Attorney
DATED:
Attest:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
BY:
Its:
(Title)
CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE:
By:
Its:
(Title)
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE:
By:
Its:
(Title)
CITY OF CHENEY:
Bv:
Its:
City Clerk (Title)
Page 7 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS:
By:
Its:
(Title)
CITY OF DEER PARK:
By:
Its:
(Title)
TOWN OF MILLWOOD:
By:
Its:
(Title)
TOWN OF ROCKFORD:
By:
Its:
(Title)
I IMAWEe]_a V,I paw I a ft
By:
Its:
(Title)
TOWN OF SPANGLE
By:
Its:
(Title)
Page 8 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk
TOWN OF LATAH
Its:
(Title)
TOWN OF WAVERLY
Its:
(Title)
Page 9 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, February 26, 2010 VERSION)