04/15/2009: "Many Questions On Transfer Station EIS"

Prior to the beginning of a County Council and PW (Public Works) session Tuesday on the final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) County Administrator Pete Rose warned PW staff to be ready for a lot of questions from the Council.

It was good advice, and he might also have warned them many of the questions would reflect some deep skepticism on the validity and completeness of the EIS, and the PW responses to past citizen and council member’s questions.

The questions lasted for three hours, with some questions being repeatedly re-phrased and re-directed to staff in an attempt to obtain clear and direct responses; but in some cases the responses seemed to confuse further, or were seemingly contradictions to past statements and responses.

The most persistent questioning came from Councilmember Lovel Pratt, who started off the questioning with a slide show of her own that highlighted the lack of space for bicycle and pedestrian travel between the guard rail and the vehicle travel lanes at the Beaverton Valley site.

Lovel questioned the EIS responses to the lack of safe access, inadequate sight lines, and the historical danger of ice conditions on the road. Pratt read one of the EIS responses to the ice issue that concluded “We assume there are icy roads on the island.”

Lovel said she had repeatedly asked for all of the studies that were completed on traffic, but “I have yet to see them.”

Councilmember Rich Peterson said that in the review of the three sites “traffic is one of many factors, so far what I have heard is that all three roads are the same, but that is not an adequate answer.”

Peterson said he thought the consultant should be asked “to determine some of these things.” Shannon responded that “it is time at this point for you to use your own judgment.”

This response from staff was repeated a number of times, and Administrator Rose said staff could forward to the consultant specific questions. ”As for the concerns on the lack of room for bicycles and the tendency for the Beaverton Valley road to ice up, Rose said “we cannot change the ice, but if you have a width you feel is necessary, we can address that.”

Pratt said she had tried to articulate her questions and concerns on the EIS to staff, but “the staff report came back with the same responses as the EIS…I am not hearing anything different.”

There were a number of questions on the lack of clear and correct cost estimates for the proposed sites. Councilmember Richard Fralick joined in with Pratt in questioning the completeness -and the validly- of the estimates to develop the sites. They also questioned the accounting that listed the cost of the Beaverton Valley site as zero “because we already own it.”

Fralick said that “it looks to me that the report is comparing apples to oranges. You need to factor in the costs.”

Councilman Gene Knapp said he had heard Shannon’s repeated responses as to why the Beaverton Valley site acquisition costs were put down as zero, but said while he did not want to hear anymore explanations, he did want to say “I don’t understand why you don’t consider money spent as part of the cost.”

Fralick asked if the $350,000.00 number for Sutton Rd site was accurate . Shannon said it was not, it should be $750,000. Councilman Howard Rosenfeld said it was not necessary to purchase the Sutton Road site from the Town of Friday Harbor because “Sutton could be leased” from the town.

There were a number of questions on the cost estimates that seemed to indicate that some of the council members were concerned the development costs to improve the Sutton Road site were stated as artificially high, while the costs for the Beaverton Valley site were very low.

Peterson specifically questioned the cost of placing a large berm on the Beaverton valley site that Shannon said was not factored into the costs, because it needs to be done even if the transfer station is not placed there.

This caused Rosenfeld to point out that the Council had not made a firm commitment “that we are even going to keep the [Beaverton Valley] property. He added that there seemed to be “a lot [development] going on up there. Do we want to continue to do this?”

It took Shannon a moment to recover before responding in a soft voice “I would certainly like to know the answer to that question.”

The next work session will be held April 27, and at least one more public hearing will be held on the 28th to receive responses from staff on the questions asked on Tuesday, and to continue to take public input.

The Council needs to quickly make a decision on where a transfer station is going to be built, so it is possible the 28th could be the deciding moment.