[Previous entry: "SJC May Be Nominated As An “Aquatic Reserve”"] [Next entry: "CC Holds Off Nominating SJC As “Aquatic Reserve”"]

07/31/2007: "Guest Editorial"

(The following is a response by the SJ County Administrator to a recent guest editorial. -Editor)

By Pete Rose

In my first year as San Juan County Administrator, I have been impressed with the quality and quantity of public input the County government receives from the people it serves. From participation on our many advisory boards and committees to public testimony to print and on-line newspapers, the people of San Juan County are engaged in lively discussions of the issues that affect these beautiful islands and our quality of life.

As someone whose duty it is to direct the day-to-day operation of much of the County Government I pay attention to public comments because they are – in a very real sense – feedback from our customers. I have received several comments from people who read Mike Macdonald’s guest editorial about our efforts to deal with the trash transfer station dilemma, posted on The Island Guardian on July 26, and I am concerned that it contained some factual errors and misperceptions that I need to be corrected before the debate continues.



First I should point out what the overall issue is . The County’s current trash transfer station on San Juan Island cannot properly handle the volume of garbage that is being generated on the island and is not meeting state health, safety and environmental standards. Because of its non-compliance, the County’s own Health Department could flatly order it to shut down.

In 2003 the Board of County Commissioners thought it had found a suitable new site for the transfer station, but the court found the plan and process it went through was flawed and that effort to deal with the problem ultimately failed.

This past year, with a new form of government, a new Council, a new County Administrator, and a new Utilities Manager we renewed the search for a solution to the trash transfer station problem. The County Public Works Department has identified four properties, including the property that was identified in 2003, that meet at least the basic size, access and zoning criteria. I think everyone realizes that there are a limited number of those sites, and some of those now under consideration were passed over for a number of reasons in the site search in 2003. That said, here are some issues that should be clarified:

The Significance of Previous Analysis - In his guest editorial, Mr. Macdonald suggested that the county was wasting time considering sites that the previous County officials had found unsuitable, and he quoted several statements from the 2003 resolution which authorized the purchase of the site they selected for use at that time. He also wrote that the resolution “implicitly prohibits” the construction of a trash transfer station on certain properties. There was, in fact, no prohibition implicit or otherwise.

The statements he quoted were from the “Alternatives and Consistency Analyses” section of the resolution. The purpose of that section was not to legislate, but to document the reasons for selecting a particular site. And while they may have been substantially accurate at the time; circumstances, technology and available options may have changed since that was written.

For instance, as Mr. Macdonald noted, “. . . the 2003 board of commissioners found that three sites presented ‘unavoidable adverse impacts to air traffic safety.’” But a year later, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an Advisory circular stating that enclosed trash transfer stations “are generally are compatible with safe airport operations, provided they are not on airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone.”

Further, in 2000, the FAA approved the construction of an open-sided trash transfer station that was actually on airport property in Snohomish County. That station has been operating since 2002 without incident. Mr. Macdonald’s editorial also quotes a section of the resolution that ruled out one property, in part, because it abutted a private airfield. That private airfield no long exists. It does, however, remain in Friday Harbor airport’s landing pattern and that impact is part of a study now being conducted.

Wetlands – The editorial stated that “a state Department of Ecology wetlands delineation completed in June, 2007 found four additional wetlands on the [prospective Beaverton Valley] site, including one under the proposed berm that will require an Army Corps of Engineers permit.”

The two major delineated areas were already on county planning maps and the total delineated area is not a significant percentage of the site. The County is committed to mitigating the impact any use of the property will have on the wetlands. The environmental impact study now underway will include a comprehensive look at the wetlands issue. The construction of the berm itself has been put on hold pending completion of a site use plan.

Doing our homework - It is important for people in our community to understand that the current site selection process is still in its information-gathering phase. Previous analyses, including those cited by Mr. Macdonald, are being considered along with new information and input. The County government is not unveiling a pre-selected site. We are trying to examine all possibilities and we have invited everyone to comment, make suggestions and raise concerns that need to be investigated, so that the process can be open, fair and informed.

Where the guest editorial was critical that a Public Works employee recently “said that the aircraft safety issue had not been considered, ” we would say more accurately that aircraft safety and dozens of other issues raised by experts, the public and others are in the process of being considered for all potential sites. Studies performed in line with the State Environmental Protection Act are underway and will continue over the next few months. At this stage of the process, none of the sites selected for consideration appear to have any inherent problems that would eliminate them without further study.

The bottom line is, if we don’t succeed, San Juan Island faces the possibility of losing its trash transfer station. The court found the previous County government did not follow proper procedures and rejected its plan to deal with the problem.

We cannot go back and change history. What we have had to do is start over, correct past mistakes and move forward in a process that is thorough, fair and open to public input and scrutiny. Some of this process may seem redundant, but it is necessary.

Our goal is not just to find the best site for the new trash transfer station, but to have the community agree that it is the best of the available solutions, based on criteria that the community has helped us establish.