Letters to the Editor

To the editor,

At the April 12 meeting of the Dayton City Council, the Council members voted against purchasing the property that would have allowed the City to move forward with bringing the wastewater treatment into compliance with Washington State Department of Ecology’s standards. The City has been working to find a resolution for this issue since 2007. That is 14 years of brainstorming, investigations, and research for the best possible solution to bring the City of Dayton into compliance.

The Department of Ecology has been patient for 14 years while the City tried to find a solution. A solution was finally found that the City, Department of Ecology, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation all agreed on. A solution that has never been done in Washington State before and that all of the agencies were excited to implement and be on the forefront of.

It took the City Council members less than 30 seconds to undo 14 years of work. Why? Do the Council members who voted No really think they know better than the engineers and researchers who put so much time and effort into the project? Did the Council members who voted No read through all of the documentation that was provided to them so that they could understand the process and all of the work that was done?

The Council members had a three-hour workshop the week before the Regular City Council meeting where Anderson Perry sat down with them and they had the opportunity to look at all of the documents and ask any questions they had. It didn’t appear that the Council members who voted No had done any of their homework or due diligence. They instead chose to wait until the City Council meeting to bring up their concerns and questions when none of the experts were present.

The City has spent over $200,000 to date on the needed surveys and engineering required to get to where they are ready to move forward and begin construction. The City has spent an additional $16,000 in earnest money to one of the private landowners to be able to access his property to conduct the necessary surveys and tests. After the initial contract with the private landowner had expired, the City paid $7,500/month in rent for four months totaling $30,000. The taxpayers of Dayton have lost $246,000 that we will never get back because some of the City Council members feel they are smarter and know better than the actual experts. This does not include any potential fines from the Department of Ecology, which will also have to be paid by city taxpayers.

City Council members, how do you suggest Dayton moves forward? Do you really feel that you are being fiscally responsible by making this decision? I am waiting with bated breath to hear your solutions. Hopefully you share them with us before the DOE starts fining us. And before they start shutting the water rights off for those downstream of Dayton.

Kari Dingman

Dayton, Wash.

To the editor,

As a resident of Dayton, I try to shop here when possible. Recently, I was shopping at City Lumber for parts to update my pump and while I was paying for the parts, I noticed an employee wearing a pistal [sic] at his side. I hope this isn’t a thing to come as it isn’t 1890. It’s 2022.

I shall stop shopping this local business because while I am not against guns, I don’t think this is necessary today. I hope you do also.

Brent G. Flint

Dayton, Wash.

To the editor,

At their April 12 meeting, the Dayton City Council voted 4-3 to forgo two years of work, and about $200,000 to say “no” to purchasing land on which to build a new wastewater treatment plant. After years of research and planning an innovative, economical, and environmentally conscious facility, the majority offered no alternative location or plan.

A new wastewater treatment facility was an urgent need when I moved here 11 years ago. It’s been a long and frustrating process for city staff, council, and the public, with many delays and roadblocks along the way. The wetlands project that the city has been working on for the last two years seems like a good solution. It would be less expensive to build and maintain than a traditional facility. It wouldn’t require much expertise to operate, and it would return water into the river.

The Department of Ecology has demanded that the city make progress toward a new wastewater treatment plant or potentially face fines. Council member Aukerman has assured us that the Department of Ecology won’t view this “no” vote as a setback, but rather as progress. Maybe the DOE will see this abandoned plan, one which they have signed off on and Mayor Weatherford says they enthusiastically endorsed and were “buzzing about” at all levels, as “progress” but I’m not sure how many people in the community will feel the same. I’m not sure I have the patience and imagination to view two years of due diligence to make sure these parcels were suitable for the project, not to mention $16,000 in earnest money and $30,000 in rent flushed down the toilet, as forward movement.

Why did the council decide to vote no? Answers have ranged from the asking price of the land, to the size of the parcels, to concerns about flooding, to some mysterious reasons we aren’t allowed to know because it was addressed in executive session. Most of these reasons have been addressed over the last couple of years. The asking price of the land is twice the appraised value and the size doesn’t allow for growth. However, these parcels are suitable for our needs and are for sale in a small market.

Now that this project is on hold, it may be years before the city is ready to purchase another parcel. These land owners have willingly allowed entities to do all the testing and investigative work necessary at this stage. Does council anticipate a larger parcel becoming available at a lower price?

The flooding concern has been addressed by Anderson Perry, the engineers heading up the project. It’s a wetland project and flooding is anticipated. Unlike a structural facility, flooding will be much easier and cheaper to address. I can’t rebut the mysterious unknown reasons council has for voting no, but I can point out, as the new council members should by now be aware, information in that executive session is no longer privileged as the purchase price is no longer a concern. See RCW 42.30.110.1b.

What’s the plan now? We don’t know.

When asked during the public comment portion of the council meeting, one of the majority members only chuckled derisively, as if this was a stupid question. Citizens of Dayton, do you think it’s a stupid question? I was assured by Council Member Aukerman that there’s no hidden agenda. There doesn’t seem to be a discernible agenda either. Council will have a workshop on April 27 at 9:00 a.m., in person or via Zoom. Maybe we’ll find out then.

Amy Rosenberg

Dayton, Wash.