Clark County report: public ownership of transfer stations likely more cost‑effective; council seeks deeper risk and rate analysis

Joel Losher, Clark County’s Solid Waste and Recycling Division manager, told the county council on June 17 that a cost–benefit analysis conducted by Parametrics (subconsultant to FCS Group) indicates “public ownership scenarios appear more cost effective than continued private ownership.” The presentation reviewed three options: the status quo (private ownership and operation), public ownership with private operation, and full public ownership and operation.

Consultant Carl Huffiggle summarized the analysis framework and assumptions, saying the study modeled only costs that vary across ownership options (operation and maintenance labor, administration, and contractor profit) over a 30‑year net present value. The consultants used a 2% real discount rate and a 50‑year useful life for capital depreciation. Huffiggle emphasized that results are sensitive to contractor profit assumptions; the slide deck used a 20% contractor profit assumption in its example.

The consultants showed that when the capital value of transfer stations is treated on a depreciated basis the three options produce similar 30‑year NPVs, but when stations are valued at replacement cost public ownership produces a materially better financial outcome. Huffiggle recommended the county “adopt the replacement value of facilities in its decision making regarding the transfer station ownership” and follow with “a much more in‑depth look at the non‑financial considerations” including governance, liability, and operations.

Council members focused their questions on scope and next steps. Several asked whether the analysis included the North County transfer station planned for about 2030 and the Wugle station (which the city has first‑right of purchase under the MSA); staff said the analysis can include Wugle if it becomes available and that the North County facility was included in regional planning assumptions. Staff and consultants said long‑range planning assumed a full‑size North County facility (about 1,500 tons per day) based on population growth projections.

County civil deputy Katie Jolma addressed liability and insurance. Jolma said a formal risk‑management and insurance assessment has not yet been completed and warned that the county “would take on a significant portion of the liability and would have to negotiate how much indemnification we would share with the provider” if it moves to public operation. Staff and consultants agreed that the study did not attempt to quantify potential changes in insurance premiums or liability exposures and recommended a dedicated deep dive on those items.

Councilors also pressed for a rate‑impact analysis. Staff said the cost–benefit model did not yet translate the outputs into proposed rates and that a separate rates assessment will be required to understand the effect on utility/rate payers. Staffing estimates in the consultants’ model were similar across options (roughly 107–112 full‑time equivalent positions across scenarios), but councilors said they want hard numbers on insurance, indemnity, and potential settlement exposure before endorsing ownership change.

The presentation noted governance steps already underway: the interlocal agreement with Vancouver favors regional governance and requires evaluation of regional options under RCW 39.34 (the Interlocal Cooperation Act). Staff have issued an RFP and are negotiating a governance consultant contract expected to return to council around August; consultants and staff said a governance decision pathway needs to be in place well before the MSA expiration in 2032, with an internal target to finalize governance structure discussions by the end of 2029 to allow for an orderly transition.

The meeting closed with council direction to continue evaluation. Staff recommended council acknowledge the cost–benefit analysis results, direct staff to proceed with further analysis of non‑financial and governance issues, and confirm alignment with the upcoming governance consultant scope. The council did not take formal action or vote during the work session.

The county and consultants identified immediate next steps as: completing a governance‑structure study with the consultant, commissioning a detailed risk and insurance analysis with risk management and the county’s finance team, and producing a rates impact assessment to translate ownership options into rate scenarios for council review.