[Previous entry: "Property Tax Appeals Up"] [Next entry: "Gregoire & McKenna To Sue Feds"]

11/25/2008: "Transfer Station Choice Delayed"

(George Post)

The SWAC (Solid Waste Advisory Committee) met Monday at 11:45 at the Fire Station on Mullis Avenue to continue a discussion on site selection for a new transfer station on San Juan Island, but were unable to reach agreement.

They did agree to hold another meeting (same time, same place) on December 15th to continue working on choosing a new site, or approving the existing site.

The County Council has been waiting for a recommendation from the SWAC as to which site would be the best location for construction of a new transfer station on San Juan Island.

On Monday the SWAC made a list of the pros and cons of the three sites that are on the list of potential sites, but were unable to reach a clear indication as to which is the committees’ choice.

So far the SWAC has been unable to make a selection, in part due to a lack of complete information upon which to judge the various sites presented to them by Public Works as candidates.


The problem has been compounded by disagreement among the committee as to what level of review the SWAC should use in making a recommendation. At the Monday meeting, Chairman George Post repeatedly said the charge of the committee is to make a policy decision on which site will best serve the needs of the community, without commenting on the potential impacts that each site might have on -for example- cost or safety.

Other members of the committee seemed less sure that was the direction the SWAC was given, arguing that their job is to evaluate all of the sites based on the positive and negative impacts on such things as cost, safety, transportation impacts, and other criterion that would help the Council make an informed decision.

Based on the Monday meeting, it would seem that rating the sites is the preference of the committee. They took turns expressing their preferences using a scale of 1 (1st) to 3 (last choice) to rate each site, and each member gave a running commentary on their reasons for making their ratings.

The Sutton site (the current dump) received three “1s”, and six “3s”
Beaverton site: four “1s”, three “2s” and two “3s”
The Daniel site: one “1”, five “2s” and two “3s”.
One of the members could not decide on Beaverton or Daniel, but gave the Sutton site a “3”

To be continued on December 15th.