Several citizens have filed for Local Government vacancies. The General
Election is November 3rd. Ballots have been mailed. If you don't get a
ballot, please contact the elections office in Vancouver.
Go to the following links for complete information:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/calendar.aspx?m=6&y=2009
http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/2009/CandidateFilingList2009.pdf
Camas-Washougal Port District
District No. 1 Mark Lampton
Gary Perman
District No. 3 Bill Macrae-Smith
Alan Hargrave
City of Washougal
Mayor Sean Guard
Stacee S. Sellers
Council Position No. 1 John Russell
Council Position No. 3 Paul Greenlee
Council Position No. 4 Garry H. Alexander, Sr.
Michael Delavar
Council Position No. 6 Larry Wagoner
Dave Shoemaker
Council-at-large Molly Coston
Be sure to VOTE!
_____________________________________
Port of Camas Washougal Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: David Ripp
Executive Director
(360) 835-2196x101
david@portcw.com
Washougal, Wash. — May 29, 2009 — The Port of Camas-Washougal today
announced the conclusion of
the liability phase of the arbitration process between the Port and
RiverWalk on the Columbia, LLC. The
arbitration panel has notified both parties of a decision that finds on
behalf of the Port of Camas-
Washougal.
“We’re very pleased with the outcome and felt from the beginning that
our position was solid, defensible
and we have been responsible to the mission of the Port and to the
citizens,” said Port of Camas-
Washougal Executive Director David Ripp. “We put forth a vigorous
defense against the claim brought by
RiverWalk. It is unfortunate we had to defend this lawsuit in the first
place, yet we have the responsibility to protect the taxpayers. It’s now
behind us and we’re moving forward."
This is good news for the Port, and the next issue at hand is the
recouping of the over $800,000 in attorney fees (This number is now at
over $950,000 and climbing as of October 2009) that were spent by the
Port to fight this case.
Martha Martin, Ph.D.
President
Concerned Citizens In Action
________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens In Action win another award: The First Freedom
Award from Society for Professional Journalists, Oregon and SW
Washington Chapter
CCIA was honored with an award from SPJ on Saturday, May 30th at the banquet
room at the Oregon Zoo. The award, called The First Freedom Award, is given to
individuals or groups whose actions promote the protection of the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States (Free Speech). This honor also recognized
CCIA for their continued role in promoting Open Government. President Martha
Martin and Board Member Susan Stauffer accepted the award.
_____________________________________________________
Nominees' brief biographies for members receiving ballots.
The Nominees for this year are: (vote for three on your ballot which was mailed to
members only)
Bernice Pluchos: "I am an active member of the Camas-Washougal Historical Society
and the Parker's Landing Park Advisory Committee. I am firmly committed to keeping
Sections A, B, and C. of the Parkersville National Historical Site for the everyone as a
public park." Bernice is a founding member of CCIA.
Mariann Guetter: Mariannn has served as a founding member and Secretary of CCIA
for almost 3 years. She is an advocate of Open Government, and supports citzen
rights to have their voice heard. She is an active member of the Parker's Landing
Park Advisory Committee.
Larry Keister: Larry has been an active member of CCIA for over a year. He attends
government meetings and provides observation reports that are published on the
CCIA website. He is an active supporter of citizens regarding their right to know what
government is doing and is always willing to ask pointed questions that get results.
John Wagoner: John is the current Vice President of CCIA. He is our most vocal
proponent of government acting in the best interest of its citizens. He is always
willing to ask the critical questions, even if government is unwilling to give him the
answers.
_______________________________________________
”In our view March 16 Sunshine Week
Special attention is devoted to the public’s right to know
Monday, March 16 | 1:00 a.m. The Columbian
It's easy for special-interest groups and complicit politicians to complain about public
records' supposedly being too available to the public. It's so easy, in fact, that Washington's
Public Disclosure Act now carries approximately 300 different exemptions. In 1972, when the
law was passed, it contained only 10.
But too often masked in the debate over exemptions is the foundation of these laws. That's
the purpose of Sunshine Week, an annual event led by the American Society of Newspaper
Editors. This year, Sunshine Week is March 15-21. See the Columbian Archives for the rest
of the story.City of Washougal announces Planning Commission Vacancy
For more information, go to http://washougal.biz/cow/index.htm and click on "Planning
Commission Vacancy" found on the home page.
________________________________________________
Want to view the WCOG public forum held on Feb. 25th?
Go to www.washingtoncog.org and click on EVENTS, then click on the Video download for that date. You can also
view other forums, and learn more about Open Government Laws.
Washington's Public Records and Open Meetings Laws Forum
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Time: 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM
Location:
Camas Public Library
625 NE 4th Ave
Camas, WA 98607
Moderator: David Seago, retired editorial page editor of the Tacoma News Tribune
The Washington Coalition for Open Government will present a special program focusing on Washington’s Public
Records and Open Meetings laws. A panel of expert presenters will fuel the discussion on securing and
preserving the public’s legal right to access the records and proceedings of the government agencies created to
serve the people of the state.
The panelists include:
State Auditor Brian Sonntag
Assistant State Attorney General Tim Ford
State Archivist Jerry Handfield
Dr. Martha Martin of Concerned Citizens in Action
Representative Bruce Chandler of the 15th Legislative District
The forum is free and open to all, and questions and comments from the audience are welcome.
Washington Coalition for Open Government
6351 Seaview Avenue NW
Seattle, Washington 98107-2664
www.washingtoncog.org
phone: (206) 782-0393
fax: (206) 623-4474
WCOG is building a network of citizens who support open government laws and practices. Please send to
info@washingtoncog.org your name, address, phone, and e-mail address. We will notify you, as they arrive, of
threats to open government and opportunities to strengthen it.
________________________________
Update on Feb. 18th meeting: Approximately 30 people attended and
gave lots of input, with several new ideas. The consensus of the public
was a resounding "Yes" to permanently protecting the Park. The
Commissioners stated they would consider all input and have another
meeting in about three weeks.
Port of Camas-Washougal Special Meeting for Public Comment on
Covenants for protecting the Historical and Marina Park area.
The Port is holding a special meeting for the public to come and make comment regarding
the Port Attorney's current restrictive covenant document that is supposed to protect the
Park area from future development and keep it in its current use. Originally, many citizens
wrote a letter to the Port requesting a zone change to keep it in its current use as a public
space. The Port's attorney suggested that covenants that followed the deed for this area
would be more protection. Read the latest version of these covenants and note that the
language does not protect "in perpetuity", but would allow for a change upon sale of this
Historic and beautiful area.
Click Here for a copy of the latest covenant draft.
Please attend this meeting and give the commissioners your input about this area. This is your
Park!
CCIA RECEIVES KEY AWARD FOR PURSUIT OF OPEN GOVERNMENT
Saturday, August 09 2008 @ 06:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action has been nominated for the Washington Coalition for Open
Government's Key Award. According to WACOG, The Key Award was created to annually honor
individuals and organizations that have worked tirelessly to force government entities in
Washington to be open and accountable to the public.
Here is the press release that was sent to CCIA from the Washington Coalition for Open
Government. Included are all the honorees that will receive awards at the September 19th
awards breakfast in Seattle, Washington.
NEWS RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AUGUST 18, 2008
TOPIC: OPEN GOVERNMENT HONOREES NAMED
CONTACT: ELLY SNOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON COALITION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT
INFO@WASHINGTONCOG.ORG 206.782.0393
Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, announced today that
two organizations, three public officials and three individual citizens will be recognized for their
work on behalf of the cause of transparent and accountable government with the coalition's
prestigious Key Awards.
"An informed public is vital to our democratic system, and those we have chosen to honor have
each given time, effort, and resources to ensure the people's right to know what their
government is doing", stated Nixon.
The honorees include: Concerned Citizens in Action of Washougal; David Koenig of Federal
Way; Olympia Port Commissioner Paul Telford; Greg Hansen, Grant County Public Utilities
District Commissioner; State Representative Bruce Chandler, R-Granger; Charlie Burrow of
Kitsap Citizens for Responsible Planning; James Neff, investigative reporter for the Seattle
Times; and Allied Law Group of Seattle.
Nominations for the honors cited the following accomplishments as reasons for the awards:
"Rep. Bruce Chandler (R-Granger) is the Ranking Minority Member of the House State
Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. He showed strong support for government
transparency when he stood up for keeping HB 3292, the bill to require taping of executive
sessions, alive when it looked as if this piece of legislation was doomed forever."
"Concerned Citizens In Action, under the leadership of Dr. Martha Martin and Roger Daniels,
has fought for the cause of open government for several years. Their efforts on behalf of the
public's right to know through the use of public records requests in the Port of
Camas/Washougal RiverWalk project uncovered questionable activity on the part of the Port.
The group continues to act as watchdogs for transparency in the affairs of local government."
"Since the mid-1990's, David Koenig has pursued the cause of government transparency by
bringing cases based on denials of public records requests. He has won awards against the
cities of Lakewood, Buckley, Tukwila and Des Moines. His pursuit of openness is based on his
desire to see that local jurisdictions clean up their acts."
"Paul Telford ran for Port Commissioner on a platform calling for openness and accountability .
He had previously won two landmark decisions holding officials accountable to the public.
During his tenure, he has attempted to expand public access to the Port's affairs by urging the
commission to televise its meetings."
"Greg Hansen had the courage to call his fellow commissioners to account for violating the
Open Meetings Act."
"Michele Earl-Hubbard and Greg Overstreet, the principals of Allied Law Group, have defended
the public's right to know what its government is doing both as individuals and as a law firm.
They each have an impressive record of taking cases of people whose access to government
information has been denied, often working tirelessly for little or no remuneration. In addition,
Allied Law Group has contributed thousands of dollars worth of pro bono work to WCOG, which
has enabled the coalition to fulfill its mission of upholding the principles of open government."
"James Neff has pursued a career-long fight for public access to government information. As a
reporter, editor, professor, author and newspaper industry leader, Neff has always been in
forefront of the battle to keep government open, not because it was his job but because he has
a passion for it and believes in the principles. As investigations editor at The Times, Neff has led
an unprecedented period in which The Seattle Times worked to open government records,
resulting in dozens of groundbreaking stories. Entire teams of Times journalists have produced
these stories, but Neff has provided the hands-on leadership throughout."
"Charlie Burrow's leadership of Kitsap Citizens for Responsible Planning resulted in improved
awareness of and access to open government in Kitsap County. His action helped clarify and
focus the minds of many Kitsap County citizens, officials and staff of the functions and value of
open government concepts. Charlie's actions exposed the undisclosed meetings and
arrangements of a very large corporation with local officials."
Each Key Award winner will receive a framed certificate and a lapel pin at the coalition's annual
James Madison/James Andersen Awards breakfast on Friday, September 19 from 7:00 to 9:00
AM at the Washington Athletic Club in Seattle.
The event will honor Jolene Unsoeld, former member of the state House of Representatives and
U.S. Congress with its 2008 James Madison Award, and retired publisher Kris Passey with its
second annual James Andersen Award. Enrique Cerna, program director of KCTS-9 will act as
master of ceremonies, and David Horsey, political cartoonist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
will present the keynote address.
The Washington Coalition for Open Government is a non-partisan, non-profit organization
founded in 2003 by a group of individuals and organizations dedicated to strengthening and
preserving Washington's open meetings and public records laws and regulations. For more
information about WCOG and its activities, go to www.washingtoncog.org
Public Records, Open Meetings: Your Right of Access
Friday, August 08 2008 @ 06:47 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
It is important to know about Public Records and Open Meetings in regards to your rights as a
citizen to have access to information. The following Questions and Answers are from The
Washington Coalition for Open Government, and provide valuable information:
Q. Why are Washington's Public Disclosure and Open Meetings acts necessary?
A. Government business is the business of the people. These acts ensure that citizens have the
right to see public documents and go to public meetings.
Q. If statutory exemptions exist, must records custodians or chairmen of public councils,
commissions, committees and boards withhold a document or close a meeting to the public?
A. No. Exemptions are not mandatory. They are to be narrowly construed to favor citizen access.
There is no penalty for releasing public documents or opening public meetings that an
exemption could have barred. There are, however, statutes outside the Public Disclosure Act
that expressly prohibit disclosure of certain records. These usually refer to a very specific type
of record. Court records, for example, are controlled by rules of the court and the judges seated
on the courts.
Q. May a local government enact an ordinance that includes requirements more or less
restrictive than those in state laws provide?
A. Local ordinances that conflict with state public disclosure and open meetings laws are void.
Q. What is a "public record"? What constitutes a "meeting" of a public agency?
A. A record is defined in broad terms of documents and information in government's possession.
The concept of a public record covers "all records, document, tape, or other information stored
or preserved in any medium" -- including on a computer -- "of or belonging to" a government
agency. A government agency is considered to be "meeting" when a majority of its members are
talking about or taking action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's
policy-making duties. That, too, is a broad definition, consistent with the law's emphasis on
openness. Many city councils, for example, have committees whose membership constitutes
fewer that a majority of the council. These meetings are open public meetings, however, even
though the "decisions" or "recommendations" from the committee to the full council are not
final. In Washington, the deliberative process of government, at all levels, is public.
Q. Does a person have a right to speak at a meeting of a government agency?
A. No. School boards, city councils, etc., routinely invite comments and discussion from the
general public, but they can say "No" to requests to talk and can place the time limits on
comments.
Q. Can a person get public information by phone or by fax?
A. Law does not provide for such access, but governmental agencies often provide it to be
helpful.
Q. When can a person see the minutes of a public meeting?
A. As soon as the minutes are prepared. A public agency cannot deny access to the minutes
because they have not been received or approved by agency members.
Q. What does it cost to get a copy of a public record?
A. A public agency may charge "a reasonable fee" for providing a copy of a record. Costs vary.
Sometimes there is no charge at all. Two rules of thumb: (1) If the charge is high enough to
discourage you from getting the record, the charge probably is not "reasonable." (2) State law
provides charges of 15 cents a page for copies.
Q. How can a person sue a public agency for violation of these laws?
A. Some points to bear in mind:
1. The goal should be to assure access, not to file and win a lawsuit. Talk with the people
involved about the presumption of openness in Washington laws. Try to work things out short
of litigation.
2. Talk with the attorney for the public agency to see if counsel thinks the law has been
followed.
3. Document your efforts to get a record or attend a meeting where access is denied.
4. Seek the advice of an attorney not associated with the public agency involved. Often an
attorney can briefly advise you at little or no charge.
5. If you file suit and are successful, the laws provide that you may recover reasonable
attorney's fees and in some cases monetary penalties.
Arbitration update information
Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:08 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The latest information given to the public regarding the arbitration between the Port of Camas-
Washougal, and RiverWalk LLC comes from the Port attorney. He informed the public at the last
Port Commission meeting that the date for the arbitration process to begin will be around
December 1st of 2008. There will be three abitrators on the panel. The Port has requested the
location to be Vancouver, WA, and has also requested that some members of the public be
allowed to attend. Riverwalk, on the other hand, is requesting that the arbitration take place in
Seattle, and wants NO public to be in attendance.
It makes sense to have the location be in Vancouver, since the witnesses and the public are in
this area. Travel back and forth to Seattle would present a hardship, with time, cost, and stress.
This process concerns the citizens of the Port of Camas-Washougal. They have a lot at stake in
the outcome of this process. Having members of the public in attendance just makes sense. We
support the location being in Vancouver, and having members of the public from the Port
District in attendance!
Important Updates at the Port of Camas-Washougal
Monday, June 09 2008 @ 06:22 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Views: 74
Rezoning of the Park to "Park".
The latest information from our Port regarding the possible rezoning of the Park area west of
the Port Office is that the Port is having all property surveyed, and will be looking into
combining some of the smaller tax lots into larger ones. The Port continues to take feedback
about the rezone process to "Park" under the zoning title of "Institutional/Public". This would
also include the current areas that are currently parking. This zoning would serve the purpose
of keeping the current utilization the way it is; just as the public sees it, with Park space (have
you visited lately? We have probably the most enviable spot for a Park on the Columbia with a
view that will lower the blood pressure of even the most stressed out of people), a National
Historic Site (read the bricks that are there in the Plaza, and take note of the history of this
site), and a Marina that is very busy along with our bursting-at-the-seams parking.
Arbitration Update
Regarding the arbitration process between our Port and Riverwalk on the Columbia, LLC, the
latest information per our Port attorney is that there will be a panel of THREE arbitrators that
will decide this case. Our attorney has stated "yes" to the question "Will there be a request for
some members of the public to be at the arbitration". Whether that will happen still remains to
be seen, but the request is legitimate; the public is part of this, since our tax dollars are paying
for the legal fees. Remember, Riverwalk is asking for $19.5 million dollars from you, the
taxpayers.
Public Meeting: Request by C/W Port to Rezone Land Near Grove Field Airport
Tuesday, April 29 2008 @ 05:52 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Public is invited to a meeting at the Port of Camas-Washougal meeting room, Thursday,
May 1st, starting at 5:30PM. Residents of the Port District can obtain more information and
comment on a request to rezone 19.6 acres near the Grove Field Airport from Residential-5 to
Airport. The Residential-5 zoning allows one home for every five acres.
The Port, already having committed to a land lease with Immelman Hanger Developments, LLC
of Gresham, Oregon to construct 17 hangars, will need this zone change in order to
accommodate Immelman's lease. According to Scot Walstra, Port Planning and Development
Director, the lease is predicated on the zone change.
The rezone request is scheduled to go before the Clark County planning commission on June
12th.
Local Citizens Echo Request of 1100 petitioners: "Rezone Parker's Landing National Historic Site
to Park"
Monday, April 14 2008 @ 05:25 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
At the last regular Port of Camas-Washougal commission meeting, a letter was discussed by
David Ripp and the Port Commissioners. This letter was composed by several local citizen
groups and individual citizens who met in two previous meetings to discuss the rezone process
to "Park" for Parker's Landing National Historic Site and the surrounding park area. During the
discussion, commissioners stated that they would like to research the documents relating to the
Park and its boundaries, and would like to have a public process that included public input and
comments at scheduled meetings just for this purpose. Richard Hamby, who has put in hours of
research to find the documents and history relating to this issue, will assist the Port by sharing
his information.
This is the text of the letter presented to the Port Commissioners:
Alan Hargrave
President
Port of Camas-Washougal Board of Commissioners
Port of Camas-Washougal
24 South A Street
Washougal, Washington
98671
Dear Mr. Hargrave:
It is respectfully requested that the Commissioners of the Port of Camas-Washougal petition the
City of Washougal to re-zone the Port owned Parkersville National Historic Site from its current
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL zone designation to INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC (Washougal’s zone
designation for parks).
The area commonly known as the Parkersville National Historic Site is described as follows; All
of tax lots #73139102, #73139100, #73139106, #73139108, #73139104, #73139110, the
unidentified space between #73139104 and #73139110, all of #73134162, the unidentified space
between #73134162 and the previously described land, all adjacent Port owned land West of the
above described land, and all adjacent Port owned land South of the above described land to
the low water line.
This request is brought to the Port Commissioners by respected members of the community
representing several groups: Former Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners, Parker’s
Landing Park Advisory Committee, the Historical Society of Camas-Washougal, Concerned
Citizens In Action, and several members of the general public. We are echoing the voices of
those thousands of citizens who previously signed petitions.
Your consideration of this request will be very much appreciated. It will be a proud day for our
community when we can finally say that our Park and Historical site, the first American
settlement in Washington State, is protected from commercial development and recognized as a
significant part of our nation, state, county, and community’s heritage.
CCIA Open Public Meeting March 26th at 7PM at Camas Police Station
Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 11:31 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Views: 51
Concerned Citizens In Action is holding an Open Public Meeting on Wednesday, March 26th at
7PM. The location is the Camas Police Station Community Room, 2100 NE 3rd Ave., Camas, WA.
This is our third Open Public Meeting since CCIA was formed just a little over a year ago.
The meeting is open to members, guests, and the public. CCIA will review the past few months
projects, such as public process at the Port, working with several public groups on requesting
rezoning of Parkersville National Historic Site to Park, the latest SR-14 safety and expansion
plans, and other government processes. We will open up the floor to the public for questions
and discussion about topics of interest to citizens. Refreshments will be served, so come and
join our meeting. We look forward to seeing you there!
President Martin
The Price of the Port's "mistakes" is $962.46 Per Person and Rising...
Wednesday, March 19 2008 @ 12:13 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
According to the County Elections Department, the population of the Port of Camas-Washougal
District is 21,023 people. That includes women, men, and children.
The waterfront development project, which so far has only provided losses for the Port tax
payers, will continue to provide further losses for the Port District. Those costs can be broken
down like this:
$19,500,000 RiverWalk arbitration claim
+$20,808 RiverWalk breach of contract claim
+$13,119 costs paid to date so far by Port to Stoel Rives attorneys (more to come)
+ $700,000 Cost incurred by Port during two-year Option Agreement period
_Total costs = $20,233,927 and rising____
That breaks down to about $962 for every woman, man, and child in the Port District. This will
soon climb to over $1000 per person as costs continue.
RiverWalk seeks claim of $19.5 million from Port of Camas-Washougal
Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 07:43 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
This article was on the front page of the March 18, 2008 Post Record.
___________________________________________________________
RiverWalk arbitration moves forward
Developer seeks possible claim of $19.5 million
By Dawn Feldhaus
Post-Record Staff
March 18, 2008
The Port of Camas Washougal is using the services of outside counsel to defend its position in
an arbitration process involving RiverWalk on the Columbia, LLC, as the development company
seeks a potential financial resolution to the dispute.
Jeff Courser, an attorney with Stoel Rives LLP, in Vancouver, is being paid to advise the port
regarding the arbitration.
"His specialty is real estate litigation," said Port Executive Director David Ripp.
The vouchers presented to the port commission Monday included a payment of $13,119 to Stoel
Rives.
RiverWalk is being represented by Lynn Stafford, an attorney with Markowitz Herbold Glade &
Mehlhaf PC, in Portland, Ore. A statement of claim signed by Stafford indicates that RiverWalk
is seeking a judgment that finds the port failed to negotiate in good faith the documents
necessary to complete the transaction and proceed with the development.
The statement also seeks an order that defines which documents are necessary to complete the
option agreement. An alternative claim for damages mentions that RiverWalk would seek an
award of no less than $19.5 million. The statement indicates that amount represents losses
RiverWalk will incur if the option• agreement is not acted upon.
A claim is also made for breach of contract damages in the amount of $20,808, along with
attorney fees.
"The port feels the claims are without merit," said port attorney Shawn MacPherson. ''We intend
to aggressively defend our position in this case."
RiverWalk on the Columbia initiated the arbitration process. A previous option agreement for a
$350 million waterfront development, which could have extended from the Parkersville historic
site upriver to the vacant property east of Hambleton Lumber, expired Nov. 2, 2007. Three days
later, RiverWalk on the Columbia, LLC, issued a statement that it had exercised its option to
enter into a long-term ground lease with the port.
According to the port, the agreement with RiverWalk expired with several "unfulfilled
contingencies," including the lack of a master development agreement between the city of
Washougal, port and RiverWalk, an agreed fully negotiated long-term ground lease for the
proposed overall project, land acquisitions necessary for the proposed project, and
establishment of a community renewal area - in compliance with the city of Washougal's land
ordinances.
The port will have 14 days to respond to the arbitration filing, after it receives the formal notice
from Judicial Arbitration Mediation Services.
Secrecy At the Port of Camas-Washougal: Columbian Editorial
Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 11:29 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Columbian Editorial page for March 12, 2008 sums up the public sentiment regarding the
current findings of the Washington State Auditor.
____________________________________________
In our view: Secrecy at Camas-Washougal port
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
On the heels of a scalding state audit of the Port of Camas-Washougal, there can be no
mistaking the bottom line: Elected officials and top staff people at ports, fire districts, city halls
and other governments should think long and hard about keeping secrets from the taxpayers,
voters and residents. Instead, engage them.
And there’s this implicit message from state Auditor Brian Sonntag to citizens: When secrecy is
a problem, fight back.
The audit is rich with examples of how figuratively bankrupt the Port of Camas-Washougal had
become in maintaining its social contract with its constituents. The same was true of the Port of
Vancouver last year when it approved a tax increase with virtually no public notice or input. In
that case, angry voters launched a petition drive to get the issue on the ballot, where they killed
it. Then, voters ousted veteran Commissioner Arch Miller in November.
At issue in Camas-Washougal was the handling of the proposed no-bid RiverWalk waterfront
development on public land. (The audit and port’s responses are at www.portcw.com. Under
“News Bulletin” click on “financial page” and then look under “2008 financial documents and
click on the accountability audit report.)
Offices, shops, condominiums and open public spaces were envisioned for RiverWalk. There
are good things to be said for that notion, and the port should continue looking to make its
waterfront accessible to the public as well as nurture industry — but with plenty of up-front
input, as it now is doing at its east-end site.
But the audit makes clear that in 2005-2006 Commissioners Alan Hargrave, Rich Gunderson
and Jim Carroll figured RiverWalk would be best left to themselves, port Executive Director
Sheldon Tyler, developers Rick Bowler and Mark Benson — later to be joined by John McKibbin
— and the lawyers. The public could be brought up to speed later, once everything was in
motion. Hang the requirement for an updated waterfront comprehensive plan and other niceties.
“The Port expedited the agreement with the developer without considering all state laws and
the need to include the public,” the audit says. “… The public was excluded from all discussion
about the proposed development until after the agreement with the developer was signed.”
Even if the letter of the open-meetings law was not violated, the spirit sure was, as critics Roger
Daniels and Martha Martin of Concerned Citizens in Action have said since they learned about
the secretive meetings in the fall of 2005 when RiverWalk took shape.
A better model, Martin said Tuesday, is the waterfront development being planned in
Bellingham. “They involved the public for three years” before beginning to pick a developer,
she said.
One secret within the larger secret, The Columbian has learned, was a series of hush-hush
talks between the port and Georgia-Pacific about putting a boat ramp on GP’s property on Lady
Island and closing the existing ramp.
But the shroud of secrecy and distrust of public involvement was not the auditor’s only
concern. There’s plenty in the audit about poor fiscal control of RiverWalk by the port, which
genuflected as the developers bought property and hired contractors to do site evaluations. The
audit details all kinds of problems with vouchers, payments and lack of port buy-in at the front
end of expenditures. Commissioners had agreed to spend as much as $200,000 initially and,
according to the audit, are now into it for nearly $700,000.
In fairness, about $391,000 of that was for land purchases that the port says can be used for
future expansion even though, as newly elected Commissioner Bill Ward said Tuesday,
RiverWalk “is off the table.”
State Auditor Report Finds Problems with Port's Handling of RiverWalk Process
Monday, March 10 2008 @ 04:37 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Port of Camas-Washougal has posted the State Auditor's Report on their website. Two
items of concern were highlighted in the report: (1.) The Port’s controls over an agreement with
a developer (RiverWalk LLC) were inadequate and (2.) The Port did not ensure transparency of
the Riverwalk development to the public.
The Auditor's report indicates that the Port spent: Land Purchases $390,702, Site Studies and
Assessments $136,694, Public Relations $75,928, Consulting Fees $73,667, and Marketing
$21,134, for a total expense toward the RiverWalk Project of $698,125. The orignial amount in
the agreement that the Port was to spend was up to $200,000. The Port appears to have spent
$498,125 over that amount - almost 1/2 million dollars over the agreed amount. That is public
dollars that were spent!
The Auditor's Report explains its findings regarding item No. 1: (quoted from the report)
"Description of Condition
The Port made several payments without adequate documentation. We also found several
instances in which the Port and the developer violated the agreement. Specifically:
• Eighty payments totaling $245,349 were made entirely by the Port, others entirely by the
developer.
• Sixteen invoices totaling $45,957 were paid initially by the developer and later
reimbursed by the Port.
• Seven payments totaling $14,946 were missing original invoices.
• Documentation was insufficient to show expenses were project-related.
• Payment on invoices often took longer than 20 days.
• Often, we found no documentation to show the Port had reviewed the scope of work prior
to it beginning.
The Port also allowed the developer to negotiate a $145,675 land purchase on its behalf without
monitoring or control over the transaction. The Port took action to regain control after the
purchase price had been agreed to and the developer had made a down payment. We found no
evidence the Port had authorized these negotiations or made an agreement with the developer
as
to the source of funds to be used to purchase the property.
Cause of Condition
Some option agreement terms safeguarded the Port and provided a way for it to monitor the
developer’s activities. By not requiring the developer to adhere to the terms of the agreement,
the Port lost the ability to control project expenses and activities. However, the agreement also
did not limit expenses to the cost categories explicitly identified in the agreement. We estimate
$561,431 of the total Riverwalk costs were for purposes other than specified in the agreement.
These expenses included such items as land purchases, public relations, consulting fees and
marketing. The Port has stated many of these costs were at their discretion.
The Port’s ability to monitor expenses was further hampered when the developer did not provide
documentation to support expenditures. Invoices provided by the developer often were received
well beyond 20 days, contrary to agreement terms. Despite repeated requests, the Port still does
not possess records such as original invoices and contracts that it has requested from the
developer. We met with the developer to review invoices and contracts but were not allowed to
make copies of them. The developer cited that it did not want all expenses to be a matter of
public record as reasoning for not providing full disclosure of documents.
Effect of Condition
The Port and developer violated some terms of the agreement. Also, the Port paid more than the
limit specified in the agreement. The lack of documentation limits the Port’s ability to ensure all
expenditures were related to the project. The Port also cannot be sure the developer met its
legal
obligation to share expenses.
Recommendation
We recommend the Port:
• Follow established policies and procedures for all payments.
• Monitor activities associated with the proposed developments.
• Ensure compliance with contract terms and conditions.
• Acquire the public records held by the developer."
The Port's response is lengthy, and can be viewed in its entirety a their website or you may see
the document by clicking on "MyDownloads" above.
The Auditor's response to the Port's response was:
"Auditor’s Remarks
We appreciate the Port’s attempt to provide a further explanation into the costs we cite in this
finding. However, we reaffirm our position that all the costs cited in this finding were related
to the proposed Riverwalk development. We will review the Port’s corrective action to address
the internal control weaknesses identified in our next audit."
Click on "read more" to view the Auditor's findings on item No. 2: "The Port did not ensure
transparency of the Riverwalk development to the public."
"The Port did not ensure transparency of the Riverwalk development to the public. (quoted
from the report)
Description of Condition
The Port Commission had a special meeting on October 28, 2005, to unveil its intentions to
develop its waterfront. In this same meeting, a presentation was heard from a developer and the
Commission approved the signing of an option agreement with the developer. We have been
contacted by numerous citizens questioning whether the Port was required to have a regular
open session prior to signing the option agreement.
The proposed development was not discussed in regular, open public Commission meeting prior
to the agreement being approved by the Board. We also found the developer met with the
Commission several times in executive sessions dating back to May 2005. State law does allow
the Port to discuss in executive session the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by
lease or purchase and to consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale
or lease. However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open
to the public.
The original agenda advertised in the newspaper for the regular board meeting on October 24,
2005, listed the proposed development as a discussion topic. However, the Commission
subsequently removed this item from the agenda and instead met with the developer in
executive
session. The agreement was then signed at the October 28 special meeting, which was
advertised 24 hours in advance.
We also found the Port’s Comprehensive Scheme did not disclose the Port was considering the
lease of marina property for mixed used development, nor did the Port adopt a separate strategic
plan related to this project. State law requires ports to adopt a comprehensive scheme of harbor
improvements in a public hearing that is advertised to the public in the two weeks preceding
adoption.
The Port adopted a Comprehensive Plan of Harbor Improvements and Industrial Development in
1999 and amended it on July 19, 2004. Neither the plan nor the amendment mentions the mixed
use waterfront development. In addition, no public advertisement requesting a waterfront
development study or proposal was published.
State law requires port districts to prepare and adopt a comprehensive scheme before spending
public funds on improvements to properties, except expenditures necessary and incidental to
developing the scheme itself. A complete and accurate comprehensive plan is necessary to keep
the public informed of Port activities.
Cause of Condition
The Port expedited the agreement with the developer without considering all state laws and the
need to include the public. The Port believes the option agreement was intended to provide the
framework for an overall development scheme, but did not bind the Port to the sale or lease of
specific Port properties absent additional agreements to be agreed upon, publicly aired, and
executed by the Port. The Port has stated the lack of a specific development scheme relieved it
of the responsibility to amend the comprehensive plan. We do not believe these views are
consistent with state law or the public expectation that government be transparent.
Effect of Condition
The public was excluded from all discussion about the proposed development until after the
agreement with the developer was signed. The Port established a Waterfront Advisory
Committee to solicit public input into the proposed development after it had signed the
agreement
and after considerable objection from the public.
As a result, the Commission did not fulfill its responsibility to be accountable to the public. The
Port has obligated and spent a significant amount of public funds and assets without adequate
public involvement in these decisions.
Recommendation
We recommend the Port ensure it informs and involves the public in its decisions regarding the
use of public resources. We also recommend the Port adopt a comprehensive scheme in
accordance with state law that includes all proposed harbor improvements. As significant
changes in direction arise, the Port must amend its comprehensive plan accordingly."
WSDOT presents SR-14 plan for improved safety and expansion
Sunday, March 02 2008 @ 12:08 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
WSDOT has unveiled its plans for safety and expansion on SR-14 that runs into and through
Camas and Washougal. The plan calls for increasing lanes from two to four, starting at 6th
Avenue and ending at Union Street. At Union, there will be a half-diamond interchange, with
on/off ramps on the west side of the interchange. These ramps will connect with an underpass
that takes traffic through roundabouts at the end of each ramp, allowing traffic to keep flowing
without stopping as it enters and exits SR-14. Frontage roads on either side of SR-14 will allow
traffic flow into the business and residential areas. Second Street will be restricted to right-in
and right-out only, as will 6th Street. A median barrier will be placed on SR-14, separating
eastbound and westbound traffic.
WSDOT appears to have developed a plan that puts safety first and foremost. There will be no
traffic lights until 15th Street, which will allow traffic ease of flow through previously dangerous
bottlenecks. No one wishes to see the horrific accidents that took lives and severely injured so
many in the past. This plan appears to improve the safety needed to avoid this in the future.
WSDOT will be presenting this plan to the public on April 22nd (note change in date!!) from 4-
7PM at the Camas Police Station. They will also present options for future completion of SR-14
all the way to 32nd Street. Construction for the current project is to begin in 2010, with
completion in 2012.
To view WSDOTs plan, go to "MyDownloads" and click on the file to view WSDOTs drawing of
the plan.
Joint Public Meeting: Cities of Washougal and Camas, Port of Camas-Washougal to be held
February 19th.
Monday, February 11 2008 @ 07:21 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Event Title: Meeting of the C-W City Councils
Where: Camas City Council Chambers
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Time: 4:30 PM PST
The Cities of Camas and Washougal are holding a joint public meeting of the City Councils on
Tuesday, February 19th at 4:30PM. The cities have invited the Port of Camas-Washougal. The
meeting is planned for Camas City Council Chambers at Camas City Hall. If anticipated
attendance is large, the location will be moved to an as yet undetermined location. There will be
notification from the Port (see website www.portcw.com) to let you know as soon as they are
notified.
Items to be discussed: SR-14 and the new community center, plus other items of importance.
Please attend this most important meeting that includes our local governmental agencies
working jointly, as well as the public. A report from WSDOT will be the first thing on the agenda.
House Bill 3292: Recording Executive Sessions under the Open Public Meetings Act.
Monday, February 11 2008 @ 07:04 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
A Bill that appeared to have died, has now been revived and is currently being considered. The
Bill Digest reads:
3292 - DIGEST
Requires a governing body holding an executive session
under this act to make a verbatim audio recording of the
complete executive session and retain the recording for a
period of two years. Such recordings are public records not
subject to public inspection and copying under chapter 42.56
RCW except by court order as specified in this act, or unless
authorized by the governing body.
Provides in an action under chapter 42.30.110 RCW
alleging a violation of the executive session provisions in
this act, a party challenging the lawfulness of the executive
session bears the burden of proof.
Provides if the party challenging the lawfulness of the
executive session supports its allegation with credible
evidence, supported by declaration or affidavit, the court
shall review the entire verbatim audio recording in camera.
After such review, if the court finds that the executive
session was not in compliance with the provisions of this
chapter related to such session, it may order disclosure of
only those portions of the verbatim audio recording of the
executive session found not in compliance, subject to such
other exemptions as may exist in law. The remainder of the
verbatim audio recording found to comply with this chapter
shall not be disclosed.
The following is the current process and progress of the bill. For further information about this
bill, see http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2008&bill=3292
HB 3292 - 2007- Recording executive sessions under the open public meetings act.
History of Bill
as of Monday, February 11, 2008 6:46 PM
Sponsors: Representatives Kessler, DeBolt, Miloscia, Upthegrove, Kelley, Hurst
By Request: Attorney General, State Auditor
2008 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 29 First reading, referred to State Government & Tribal Affairs. (View Original Bill)
Feb 4 Public hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs at 8:00 PM.
Feb 7 Executive action taken in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs at 6:
00 PM.
SGTA - Executive action taken by committee.
SGTA - Majority; do pass.
Minority; do not pass.
Feb 8 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
Click "Read More" for the The February 10, 2008 Columbian editorial regarding this Bill.
Record the Meetings : Bipartisan support of brilliantly written bill should lead to approval by
legislators
The Columbian
Sunday, February 10, 2008
It's difficult to imagine how one could disagree with a bill that requires audio tapes of executive
sessions, when those tapes could be heard only by a judge, and when those tapes could be
made public only when a judge finds wrong-doing. And how could one disagree with a bill that
has bipartisan support from highly respected Republican State Attorney General Rob McKenna,
Democratic State Auditor Brian Sonntag, two Republican state representatives on a key House
committee and two Democratic lawmakers on the same committee?
But then there's the twisted logic of Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt. Last week Boldt
told the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs: "When you put a tape
recorder in front of an executive session, you may not say that uncomfortable question." Boldt's
comment prompts us to repeat our question: How could a tape recorder at a meeting be a
problem when attorneys are present, when the only outside person who could listen to that tape
would be a judge, and when the public would learn about the proceedings only if the judge
finds wrongdoing?
Mark Brown, lobbyist for the city of Vancouver, said in opposing House Bill 3292: "I'm not saying
people haven't strayed in executive session. I'm saying it's the exception to the rule." That might
be true, but Sonntag found more than 460 violations of executive session rules between 2004
and 2007.
McKenna said, "The advice given by attorneys will be protected. The standard (for bringing a
challenge) is fairly high for the challenger and the judge."
Because both city- and county-government associations put up such a stink before the
committee, HB 3292 appeared to have died Tuesday when it failed to come up for a vote.
However, the bill was resurrected Thursday night, thanks in part to the efforts of state Rep.
Bruce Chandler, R-Granger. He said in a statement after the committee advanced the bill that
he supported "keeping government accountable to citizens. This bill would ensure that
business done behind closed doors is protected unless there is serious question about what
was said."
There's another point to consider. Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder
there, just to document how properly they're performing their jobs and to remove any doubt to
the contrary?
The only reason any public official could oppose this bill would be fear of doing something
wrong, and if that happens, wouldn't it be best if a judge and then the public found out about it?
HB 3292 is brilliantly crafted. It provides as much protection for proper behavior as it provides
scrutiny of improper behavior. Legislators should stop listening to the cowering whiners and
pass the bill. The public has the right to know about violations of executive session rules.
"Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder there?"
Ken Powell, former Port Commissioner's letter to the editor: "Walk Away from Project"
Thursday, January 31 2008 @ 07:53 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
One of our former Port commissioners, Ken Powell, submitted this letter to the Columbian's
editor.
________________________________________________________________
The Columbian Opinion section: Letter to the Editor
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Walk away from project
The Post-Record Jan. 8 story regarding RiverWalk quoted Port of Camas-Washougal attorney
Shawn MacPherson: "The port's position remains the same (as) when RiverWalk purported to
exercise the option. Several contingencies were not met. The option has lapsed. Our position
has not really changed."
I believe that this option agreement was seriously flawed and should not have been agreed to by
the port. That it probably favors the developers financially is obvious by John McKibbin's
statement, "We are moving to binding arbitration." Commissioners should not agree to
arbitration, but should vigorously support attorney MacPherson's contention that "the option
has lapsed." The port director and commissioners have a legal responsibility to protect port
property and grow district taxpayers' investment in the port.
The public should have been more directly involved in the study and selection process. It is time
for the port commission to walk away from RiverWalk. If port taxpayers agree, a more open
planning process should be implemented - one that maximizes public access to the river,
enhances recreation opportunities, preserves existing parks and open space, and provides for
an appropriate financial return to the port. Move on before any more mistakes are made.
Ken Powell
Vancouver
CCIA supports input from all Port Stakeholders for proposed 127 acre East Industrial Property
rezone
Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 04:14 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
On December 27, 2007, Concerned Citizens In Action was interviewed by J.D. White as
"stakeholders" in the Port of Camas-Washougal District. This interview was part of the
beginning of the Port's gathering of public input regarding consideration for a zone change for
127 acres of Port Industrial land. This property is directly East of the current Industrial Park, and
connects directly to Steigerwald National Wildlife Refuge.
During this interview, CCIA's primary comment, which was stated many times, was that all
residents of the Port District, as well as those in bordering areas that express an interest,
should be considered the true stakeholders. We suggested several additional '"stakeholders" to
be interviewed, and our suggestions were taken; the Port added additional "stakeholders" to
the interview process.
CCIA encourages each interested citizen to provide their input to J.D. White and/or the Port of
Camas-Washougal. Public input is important in this process, since this property being
considered for rezone belongs to the citizens of the Port District.
CCIA suggests that each citizen take the time to review the interview questions and submit
their own input to the Port. Read further for a copy of the interview questions, which you are
free to copy for your own records. Click on "Read More" below.
To download an original copy (prepared by J.D.White), Click on "MyDownloads" for the file.
You may also obtain a copy of the Port's "East Industrial Rezone Assessment fact sheet" which
describes the rezone process, including gathering further public input. Click on "MyDownloads"
for this file.
Port of Camas/Washougal
East Industrial Park Rezone Assessment Project
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS
The Port of Camas/Washougal is starting a process to determine whether to pursue changing
the uses allowed in the vacant portion of the 127-acre East Industrial Park from light and heavy
industrial uses to a range of office and business park uses. The Port is also considering under
what conditions it would sell a portion or all of this land.
As an early step in this process, the Port is interviewing key stakeholders to gain insights that
will help the Port evaluate these options. We encourage you to review the accompanying fact
sheet to learn more about the land in question, the evaluation and input process, and ways you
can stay involved in the process.
1. How do you think the Port is perceived in the community?
2. What is your understanding of the ways in which the Port contributes to the community’s
quality of life, especially related to economic vitality?
3. What is your understanding of the Port’s mission or purpose?
4. Are there conditions under which you think the Port should sell property as opposed to
continuing to own and lease property?
5. Within the economic development community, there is a lot of discussion about what types of
development are considered to be industrial development. Which of the following would you
consider to be industrial development:
• 1. Manufacturing plant
• 2. Research laboratories and related office parks
• 3. Offices that house a call center (for example, an office where people are answering
customer service inquiries)
• 4. Distribution center (for example, a facility where goods are received from outside our
region, then sorted and distributed within our region)
• 5. High technology industries, such as a server farm (for example, a facility that houses a large
number of computer servers for a firm that provides internet service)
• 6. Other types of industrial development:
6. Which of these types of industries (1 through 6) do you believe are appropriate uses for the
East Industrial Park and why?
7. What information do you think the Port should consider in assessing whether or not to
change from light and heavy industrial uses to a range of office and business park uses?
8. How do you get information about the Port? Do you get enough and the right kind of
information from the Port? Have you visited the Port’s web site?
Concerned Citizens In Action hold elections for board members and officers for 2008
Friday, January 04 2008 @ 07:01 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action (CCIA), a public not-for-profit corporation registered with the
Washington Secretary of State, conducted its annual election on January 2, 2008. The new
board of directors of CCIA are: Gary Cole, Roger Daniels, Jeff Guard, Mariann Guetter, Richard
Hamby, Martha Martin, Bernice Pluchos, Susan Stauffer and John Wagoner. Ceil Kirchner was
elected Member-at-large. Those elected as 2008 officers are: Dr. Martha Martin, President; John
Wagoner, Vice President; Mariann Guetter, Secretary; and, Roger Daniels, Treasurer.
CCIA voted at their annual membership meeting in November 2007 to focus on several issues:
continued monitoring and public involvement with the Port of Camas-Washougal’s dealings
with Riverwalk, LLC, preservation of Parkers Landing Historic Site, SR-14 expansion and safety,
and other community issues. CCIA’s purpose is: To hold government accountable to the public
while serving the public interest.
Arbitrator sought in Camas-Washougal Port dispute with Riverwalk
Monday, December 31 2007 @ 07:49 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The following news article appeared in today's Oregonian. It appears that the Riverwalk
developers are flexing their muscles and stating that they want the entire 65 acres for their
project. Some of this is not Port owned land, and is not available to these developers. Do they
plan to sue private property owners? And does this clearly indicate that the Port signed an
agreement that they cannot walk away from? It appears that the Port did not protect the public
or our assets, and if an arbitrator decides that this agreement must stand as written, then do we
lose our right to public access to our marina, park, parking, and river? Read and let your
commissioners know your opinion of this latest development.
______________________________________________
Arbitrator sought in Camas-Washougal Port dispute
Posted by The Oregonian December 31, 2007 13:44PM
A group that wants to build housing, restaurants and shops at the Port of Camas-Washougal
announced today it will seek an arbitrator's ruling in a dispute with Port commissioners.
Port and RiverWalk on the Columbia representatives had been talking until mid-December in
an attempt to resolve their differences. The talks came after the Port's announcement in early
November that an option agreement for a waterfront redevelopment with RiverWalk had expired.
RiverWalk officials, however, contend Port officials were seeking changes to the project that
the developers would not accept. Among other things, Port officials said in November they
wanted the project limited to 14.7 acres near the Columbia River that the Port owns.
RiverWalk wants to develop about 50 additional acres the Port contends it does not control.
RiverWalk officials say the entire 65-acre parcel is included in a November 2005 option
agreement.
As first envisioned, RiverWalk was expected to be a $300 million to $400 million project with
housing, retail and offices.
-- Allan Brettman; allanbrettman@news.oregonian.com
Editorial in Columbian presents the facts to Mr. Ripp
Wednesday, December 19 2007 @ 02:55 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The Columbian editoral staff has printed an article today that offers concerns that the new Port
Executive Director must face as he hits the ground running. Among those concerns: Riverwalk
challenges and riverfront access for the public, and reminding the commissioners of their
responsibility to the citizens, with emphasis on transparency.
_________________________________________________________________________
In Our View: Welcome, Mr. Ripp
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 The Columbian
Remember that the port is the public's.
At least one thing will be easier for David Ripp when he takes over as executive director of the
Port of Camas-Washougal on Jan. 7. That will be his commute.
He and his family live in Camas. As executive director of the Port of Woodland for the past 13
years, Ripp, 41, has been making that round trip. Ripp was picked Monday by Port of Camas-
Washougal commissioners to replace Sheldon Tyler, whom they fired in August.
The commute to his new job will be easier, but Ripp's challenges are new and serious. Reasons
for Tyler's termination have not been made public. But Tyler has said the controversy over the
proposed RiverWalk waterfront development, approved in haste and near-secrecy by the
commissioners two years ago and now in jeopardy, was a key factor.
RiverWalk is now envisioned as a 14.7-acre mixed-use development rather than the 65 acre
project developers thought they were getting. This has created two initial challenges for Ripp:
One is to get RiverWalk settled one way or the other. Whether with these or other developers,
we would like to see the Washougal waterfront opened to more public access without
jeopardizing the Parker's Landing Historic Site or the pleasure boat marina or creating a wall of
high rises blocking vistas to the south from north of state Highway 14.
Ripp's other RiverWalk-related challenge is to help the commissioners do a better job of
remembering and acting like the port belongs to the public, which it does. The election of Bill
Ward to the commission should make that part of Ripp's job easier.
Future access to the Columbia River, be it on the old Boise Cascade mill site in Vancouver or in
Washougal, is of considerable importance throughout Clark County, not just to residents of the
respective jurisdictions. Lifestyle amenities such as public waterfronts are a selling point in the
recruiting to the county of industry and hard-to-get employees.
Beyond all that, Ripp will have plenty on his plate, including the future of Grove Field airport
and continued economic development on the port's industrial land. At Woodland, industrial
development was Ripp's chief concern. When he started at the Port of Woodland, the port had
$95,000 in annual lease revenue. That figure now is $495,000.
Best wishes, David Ripp. Be inclusive and transparent - and happy commuting.
David Ripp, former Port of Woodland Executive Director, named Port of C/W Executive Director
Monday, December 17 2007 @ 08:26 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
David Ripp has been hired to replace Sheldon Tyler as the next Port of Camas-Washougal
Executive Director. Mr. Ripp will step into his position on January 7th of 2008, with a yearly
salary of $90,000. According to the pre-prepared press release given to the public at the Port
regular meeting this evening (December 17th), Mr. Ripp will "be heavily involved in the port's
various key capital projects including the East Industrial Park rezone assessment; RiverWalk
waterfront redevelopment project; implementation of the Airport Layout Plan; SR-14 impact
study; and completion of Captain William Clark Park Operations." Mr. Ripp currently resides in
Camas.
Port Meets Offsite for Executive Session
Monday, December 10 2007 @ 09:25 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
This announcement was in Sunday's Columbian in the Public Meetings section. It is assumed
that this is an Executive Session regarding the interview process for the two finalist for Port
Executive Director. Executive Sessions are not open to the public. The last Executive Session
that was held offsite at the Port Attorney's office was in August of this year. It was shortly after
that meeting that Sheldon Tyler and the Port announced he was no longer Executive Director
for the Port of Camas-Washougal.
_________________________________________
From December 9, 2007 Columbian:
Monday
Port of Camas-Washougal, 8 a.m. at the law offices of Knapp, O'Dell & MacPherson, 430 N.E.
Everett, Camas: executive session to discuss personnel.
It's Our River!
Wednesday, December 05 2007 @ 09:52 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Today's Columbian featured an Editorial by the Columbian Staff regarding the current decisions
being made at the Port of Camas-Washougal. We hope the Port is paying attention, since this
reflects what hundreds of people are also telling us.
_________________________________________
In our view: It's Our River
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Columbian Editorial
The importance of what happens at the Port of Camas-Washougal is not limited to residents of
Camas-Washougal - not any more than is the importance of Mount St. Helens limited to
residents of Skamania County or concern for Washington's ocean beaches limited to residents
of Pacific, Grays Harbor, Jefferson and Clallam counties.
Consequently, residents far beyond the port district's legal boundaries have a big stake in the
leadership of the Port of Camas-Washougal. On Dec. 17, port commissioners will pick one of two
finalists as executive director. One is Dave Ripp, who holds the same title at the Port of
Woodland. The other is Patricia Stryker, who for 10 years was property and development
director for the Port of Vancouver.
Port of Camas-Washougal commissioners and former executive director Sheldon Tyler ran into
a storm of criticism for their secretive, no-competition deal for waterfront development with a
local consortium called RiverWalk on the Columbia LLC.
Tyler's sudden departure in August is widely thought to be tied to the RiverWalk debacle. The
election to the commission last month of Bill Ward, a RiverWalk critic, was clearly a
manifestation of voters' disappointment in and distrust of port leadership.
It would have been a healing gesture to the public if the port had waited for Commissioner-elect
Ward to take office in January so he could have been one of the deciders on selection of a new
executive director. Instead, the board has rushed to fill the job by Jan. 1. Interim director Byron
Hanke sifted through 36 applicants and presented the present board with nine names. That
would have been a good place to pause the process until Ward was sworn in.
Still, the public was invited to at least two opportunities to meet the two finalists, and Ward said
Tuesday they are both "fine candidates." He also said he believes he will be allowed to sit in on
interviews with the two finalists. We hope so, and that his comments are invited.
On the other Port of C-W track, plans for initial riverfront development have been scaled back
from 65 acres to 14.7 acres. The new executive director, the three commissioners, including
Ward, and developers and the public will shape the future of that parcel. At least we certainly
hope a deal awaits Ward's participation and reflects public sentiment.
Hanke said Tuesday that considerable progress has been made with RiverWalk for the 14.7
acres, but two or three difficult issues remain.
Ward said Tuesday he doesn't want to make the transition "any rockier than it has to be" but
suggested the Port, with public input, should decide what should go on the site and only then
seek a developer to do it, rather than give the project to RiverWalk by default and let it make a
proposal.
The port should either do as Ward suggests or make clear to the public why that idea is not the
way to go. In any case, the new board of commissioners should move the process along, in the
open, so we can all enjoy our river.
The public meets the Port's finalists for Executive Director
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 09:04 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Two candidates for Port of Camas-Washougal executive director were introduced this evening
during the Port's regular meeting.
The Port Commissioners reported that they will interview the candidates Dec. 10th and
announce a selection Dec. 17th, at the Port's next regular meeting.
The finalists are Patricia Stryker, director of development and community relations for
Columbia River Mental Health Services in Vancouver, and David Ripp, executive director of the
Port of Woodland, a position he has held since 1994. Ms. Stryker was also property and
development director for the Port of Vancouver from 1989 to 1999, and Executive Director to
the YWCA of Clark County for two years. Previously, she also has been an executive with Red
Lion and has worked for the city of Vancouver as property manager and Central Park
coordinator.
The salary range for the Port of Camas-Washougal Executive Director postion is $80,000 to
$100,000.
The new director will replace Sheldon Tyler who was the Port of Camas-Washougal Executive
Director for 22 years.
Nominations and Election for new Board members
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 11:32 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action held a membership meeting on November14th, at which time
nominations for new board members took place. As of November 13th, Bill Ward has resigned
his position as Vice President of CCIA as he steps into his new role of Commissioner for the Port
of Camas-Washougal in January 2008. Also ending their year-long positions with CCIA are:
Roger Daniels, Treasurer, Richard Hamby, Board Member, and Ceil Kirchner, Board Member.
Members nominated for positions on the 2008 board are: Roger Daniels, Richard Hamby, Ceil
Kirchner, Gary Cole, and John Wagoner, of which four will be elected by the members to
become 2008 board members. Ballots were mailed to members on December 1st with stamped
self-addressed envelopes. All ballots must be received by December 31, 2007. The results of
this election will be posted on our website in January, in the Post Record, and by mail and email
to members and friends of CCIA. Officers will be nominated and elected at our first regular
board meeting in January of 2008.
If you would like to become a member of Concerned Citizens In Action, please complete the
application (you can download a copy in MyDownloads), and contact another member to be a
sponsor. If you are unable to contact a member, call (360) 835-1070 or (360) 852-5151 and
request a sponsor. There are no dues or fees to join, and you will be kept up to date regarding
new events, information, and activities regarding our mission: "to hold government
accountable to the public while serving the public interest".
Concerned Citizens In Action: Summary of our first year
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 11:23 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA will file an annual report at the end of the year with the State of Washington. The entire
report is available in MyDownloads. Below is the first portion; the Introduction and Executive
Summary written by President Martha Martin.
___________________________________
Annual Report 2007
Concerned Citizens In Action
Message from your President.
Intoduction and Executive summary.
It’s been a full and rewarding first year for the nine board members of Concerned Citizens In
Action. We formed our non-profit corporation in January 2007, drafted new by-laws, and
developed a logo as a team effort. And what a team!
We started our journey at a picnic table in the Parkers Landing Historical Park. Our first
mission, before becoming CCIA, was to gather over 1100 signatures from the public to “save
our park”. From there, the beginning of Concerned Citizens In Action was born. And have we
been busy!
We held twenty four (24) regular or special meetings, two membership meetings, and one public
forum. Several of us attended all Camas-Washougal Port regular or special meetings, most of
the City of Washougal council meetings, and a few of the City of Camas Council meetings, and
City of Washougal Planning meetings. We pulled public records and read over 500 pages of
documents. We transcribed, word for word, the comments and questions from the pubic who
attended our forum. We set up an informational website and posted some of the Port public
record documents. We wrote letters to the editor, and were interviewed by Dean Baker of the
Columbian for a story about our process. We wrote guest columns to the Post Record, and we
had a booth at the Ice Cream Social held at the Two Rivers Museum. We wrote to the state
auditor about our concerns, and met with the assistant state auditor, presenting her with
documents and information to assist with her performance and financial audit of the Port.
We communicated with the people of our community by visiting Home Owners Association
meetings, talking with people on the phone, talking with them at meetings, and answering
emails. We attended the Open House for the Port and stayed the entire time, listening to people
and asking questions. We attended all Waterfront Advisory Committee meetings, asking
questions and voicing our opinions. We applied to be on the WAC committee when it was being
formed. We talked with the stakeholders in our community, such as the landowners near the
Port, the Puffin Café’, Westlie Motors, the Parkerhouse Restaurant and Victor Espinoza, the
boating community and the Commodore of the Vancouver Yacht Club, Hambleton Brothers, the
PLPAC, and the public at large. We met individually with several City of Washougal Council
members, and presented the City council of Washougal with packets containing public
documents that had not been seen by the public before. We presented the public comments
and questions from our forum to the Port, and also presented them with a critique of their
answers to those comments and questions. We obtained our own legal counsel to learn the
ramifications of the Option Agreement signed by the Port Commissioners. We wrote letters to
WSDOT reinforcing their designs for SR-14 that put safety first. We submitted Press releases,
some that were published regarding our concerns.
As I reviewed our minutes, I realized how hard this group worked. So many hours were spent in
research, talking with people, thinking about our next steps, and attending meetings that it
seemed at times as if we were doing this more than any other thing in our lives. What made this
so important to us? We all felt that there was a government process not acting in the best
interest of its public. We wanted to make people aware of the facts and documents, and allow
them to make decisions about what they wanted done, and how they wanted it done. We had, at
one point, declared an alternative vision called “Dare to be different”. I believe we continued to
use this as a means to develop our goals and strategies, especially when all the messages we
got from the government were “stay the course”.
We have at this time appeared to have had an impact on our Port. They have changed course,
and it is still to be seen what direction this change will take them and the public. Concerned
Citizens In Action will continue to follow the events, and continue with their process regarding
the Port and its actions. And we have other projects in mind to begin to focus on. We hope to
hear from our members what they would like to see as future projects regarding government
accountability and transparency.
(For the rest of the report, go to MyDownloads).
Sheldon Tyler to be awarded "Outstanding Service to Industry" Award by WPPA
Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 09:29 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The Washington Public Ports Association is awarding Sheldon Tyler, former Camas-Washougal
Port Executive Director, the "Outstanding Service to Industry" Award. Mr. Tyler will be traveling
to Bellevue, WA to receive his award during the WPPA conference being held from November
14-16. Congratulations to Mr. Tyler!
The WPPA annual meeting has some interesting items on their agenda. One seminar being
offered is "Improving Your Public/Community Involvement Programs". Another is "Operating
Your Port “Transparently”. There is one that appears to be directly related to our current
concerns; "Addressing Citizen Protests". It appears that the public is being considered more
seriously as a partner in the operations of our public ports.
There is one seminar that really seems to address a local concern; the Parkers Landing National
Historical Site: "Managing Your Cultural Resources: Burial and Archeological Sites, Historic
Buildings".
Visit the WPPA website for more information at: http://www.washingtonports.org, or view the
annual meeting agenda at http://www.washingtonports.
org/member_resources/events/annualmeeting.htm.
RiverWalk project at a standstill
Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:05 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
BY CAMI JONER, Columbian staff writer
The Port of Camas-Washougal is backing away from a proposed $350 million project to develop
65 acres on the Columbia River waterfront.
The project has been on the front burner for two years, but the original agreement expired this
month for RiverWalk, a mixed-use project proposed for property owned by the port as well as
several private land holders.
Alan Hargrave, president of the port's three-member commission, said talks on a new agreement
are at a standstill because the port wants to scale back the size of the project.
A previous agreement called for both parties to study and create a master plan for a 65-acre site
that included nearly 50 acres of port-owned property. Now the port is only offering a 14.7-acre
parcel on the east side of its holdings to backers of RiverWalk on the Columbia LLC, a husband-
and-wife group that includes Rick Bowler and Marilee Thompson, owners of One Pacific Corp.;
Mark and Mary Benson of Camas; and John and Nancy McKibbin of Vancouver.
The site's size was scaled down "because property acquisitions didn't happen," Hargrave said.
Neither did plans to relocate the boat launch to the eastern end of the site.
RiverWalk backers rejected the idea of the smaller project and want to move forward with the
original agreement, said John McKibbin, project spokesman.
"We've exercised our right to enter into the long-term ground lease" for the entire portion of
land owned by the port, McKibbin said.
"That doesn't include properties not owned by the port. They're not available," he said.
Envisioned as an upscale mix of shops, restaurants, a hotel, offices, condominiums and public
boating and walking facilities, RiverWalk has drawn a wide range of public comment and
criticism over the past two years.
"The RiverWalk plan is not bad. We've talked for nine months about making it beautiful," said
Roberta Tidland, a local historian and one of 12 citizens on the port-appointed Waterfront
Advisory Committee, convened to study the project.
"But it's just talk," Tidland said. "The port commission will have the final say."
If commissioners and the developers do reach an accord, the new agreement would be up for
public review, said Shawn MacPherson, an attorney for the port.
"We've indicated this would be available to the public," he said.
Port attorneys from Knapp O'Dell & MacPherson have spent the past month trying to get
agreement for the smaller project with William J. Eling, an attorney for RiverWalk on the
Columbia LLC.
"We could not reach an agreement on some of the points," said Byron Hanke, the port's interim
executive director.
A port-issued press release on Monday said RiverWalk developers did not live up to the terms of
the original agreement and failed to:
- Develop a master development agreement between the city of Washougal, the port and
developers.
- Negotiate a long-term ground lease for the proposed overall project.
- Establish a Community Renewal Area, in compliance with the city's land ordinances.
MacPherson said he expects RiverWalk will react to those claims this week.
"We're still waiting to hear from RiverWalk," he said.
Waterfront Redevelopment Agreement Expires, Discussion Stalls
Monday, November 05 2007 @ 06:26 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners presented the public this evening with the
beginning of a victory for the public. According to Shawn McPherson, Port attorney, the
Riverwalk Option Agreement expired November 2nd at midnight. Riverwalk chose to exercise
their option, but the Port said Riverwalk needed to adhere to section 25 and 26 of the
agreement, which states that certain conditions must be met for this option to be extended.
Riverwalk has not met these contingencies.
The Port has attempted to negotiate to reduce the "footprint' of the project, and focus on the
6th Street Property East of Hambleton's Lumber. The Port sees this project as more
"economically feasible". The Port and Riverwalk were NOT able to come to an agreement to
proceed with this project. Shawn McPherson has stated that it is possible that for this issue to
be resolved, arbitration or dispute resolution may be used. Read the Press release below for all
the details. In a few words, this means that the Port has decided to put the public first, and the
developers second. However, the agreement option has been exercised, so stay tuned for
further developments regarding how the Port continues with all of this.
PORToF
CAMAS-WASHOUGAL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 5, 2007
CONTACTS: BYRON HANKE, PPM
PORT OF CAMAS-WASHOUGAL (360) 835-2196 ext. 101
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXPIRES, DISCUSSION STALLS
Washougal, Wash. - Port of Camas-Washougal Board of Commission President, Alan Hargrave,
announced today that the Port has been working with the development group, RiverWalk on the
Columbia, LLC, on a potential smaller waterfront redevelopment footprint with a new agreement
to replace the previous option agreement signed in 2005. However, both parties have been
unable to reach agreement to proceed with a revised waterfront redevelopment project. Port
Commissioners will determine future next steps in upcoming discussion.
For the last three months, the Port has been discussing with the developers the possibility of
commencing the proposed waterfront redevelopment project on a smaller footprint on a 14.7-
acre parcel at the east end of the original 65-acre proposed project. If agreement could be
reached, this smaller proposed concept would be reviewed by the Waterfront Advisory
Committee.
This smaller footprint was proposed for the following reasons:
1) The 14.7-acre site is comprised primarily of vacant port-owned property. Previous studies
have concluded a mixed use development is appropriate for the site.
2) Establish an anchor project to tie in with possible future waterfront expansion.
3) Allow for time to work out details of a larger overall project, specifically pertaining to land
acquisitions needed for a full build-out.
"Despite all the hard work and good intentions to reach consensus, it is unfortunate that both
parties were unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement to proceed with this project,"
said Hargrave. "The Port's project team believes that this smaller footprint would give the
community a chance to work with the Port on fulfilling a waterfront vision that would be more
cost effective and manageable."
PROJECT HISTORY & UPDATE
The Port of Camas-Washougal entered into a public/private partnership with RiverWalk on the
Columbia, LLC, in November, 2005. A joint investment of two years and a total of $400,000 to
explore the feasibility of a 65-acre waterfront development that extends from Parkersville
historic site, upriver to the Port's property at 6th Street.
The 2005 option agreement allowed for site assessments and feasibility studies to master plan
the proposed project. Should the waterfront development proceed, Riverwalk would be
responsible for project construction costs estimated at $300 to $400 million. Pending community
input, public process, and permitting, construction was projected to begin in 2008 with an
anticipated build-out in six to eight years.
While RiverWalk purported to exercise its option to enter into a long-term ground lease with the
Port last week, the 2005 option agreement expired this past Friday with various unfulfilled
contingencies, including the lack of:
b) A Master Development Agreement between City of WaShougal, Port, and Riverwalk.
c) An agreed fully-negotiated long-term ground lease for the proposed overall project.
d) Land acquisitions, necessary for the proposed 65-acre project.
e) Establishment of a Community Renewal Area, in compliance with the City of Washougal's
land ordinances.
"We believe in improving waterfront access and economic development," said Hargrave. "We
will continue to look for opportunities to bring economic and recreational benefits to our
waterfront with our community partners."
ABOUT THE PORT OF CAMAS-WASHOUGAL
Formed in 1935 by a vote of the local community, the Port of Camas-Washougal features a 400-
acre industrial park, a 79-hangar general aviation airport, and a 350-slip pleasure boat marina.
In addition, the port has 40 industrial tenants and over 125 acres for future industrial
development. Popular with recreational and general aviation pilots, Grove Field airport also has
a state-of-the-art fueling station and 14 tie-downs. The Port of Camas-Washougal marina,
largest on the Columbia River, is adjacent to two restaurants, a launch ramp, a marina park,
fueling station, guest docks, and homeport to the Vancouver and Dolphin Yacht Clubs.
More information about the Port of Camas-Washougal and its ongoing projects can be found at
www.PortCW.com.
-END-
Many Speak Out at Port Meeting including former Port Commissoners
Monday, October 22 2007 @ 10:31 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The October 22nd Port of Camas-Washougal's regular meeting was well attended by the public,
at lease 40 people. Many people spoke up and asked intelligent questions and offered valuable
concerns and opininions. Two former port commissioners, Mr. John Raynor and Mr. Bill Macrea-
Smith joined the public in offering their concerns about the Port process regarding the
partnership with Riverwalk LLC. Mr. Macrea-Smith took the time to approach the commissioners
and present to them his concerns based on his experience as a commissioner and knowlegde of
the RCW's. Thank you to both former commissioners.
Many other people in attendance asked about the details of a new agreement that, as was
reported by the port attorney, is being completed and will be ready sometime next week. Details
were not readily available, and no specifics were forthcoming. It was difficult to understand if
this agreement would be an extension of the original Option/Agreement, or a new agreement.
You may review this meeting in detail by obtaining the port's audio recording. You can obtain it
by making a public records request at the Port of Camas-Washougal office.
Letter to State Attorney General from former Port Commissioners
Wednesday, October 17 2007 @ 03:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Former Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners John Raynor and Bill Macrea Smith have
given us permission to post a copy of their letter sent to the State of Washington's Attorney
General, Mr. Rob McKenna. The following is a copy of the text of that letter. For an exact copy of
the letter, see MyDownloads for the PDF version, which includes the actual signatures of these
commissioners.
_________________________________________
September 29, 2007
Mr. Rob McKenna
Attorney General
State of Washington
1125 Washington Street S.E.
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, Washington
98504-0100
Subject: Option Agreement dated November 8th, 2005 - Port of Camas/Washougal and
Riverwalk on the Columbia, LLC - copy attached.
Exhibit A - A blank page as presented to us by the Port of Camas/Washougal
Exhibit B - Process For Forming Community Renewal Area
Dear Sir:
This letter is a request for your office to review the above referenced Option as to its legal and
binding authority over the Port of Camas/WashougaL The Option seems to be poorly written
with many ambiguities making it difficult to determine the rights and obligations of the parties,
in our opinion. It appears to be overly favorable to "Riverwalk" and as such very unfavorable to
the Port of Camas/Washougal and our community. We feel that the Port Commissioners did not
exercise due diligence when they approved the Option Agreement.
Also, your office should be aware that when the Option was signed by the Port Commissioners
Exhibit A was not available. We have approached the Port on three different occasions, the
next to last approach was with the form "Freedom of Information Request", and as a result we
were given the above referenced documents (Exhibit A is a blank page). Our last and most
recent request was made to Port management and we were told that Exhibit A was not available
and that it was being "worked on". If this is true then the Port Commissioners signed an
agreement that was not complete and they did not know what land was being offered for long
term leasing or for the potential purchase by the Riverwalk group. (for the rest of the letter,
please click below for more....see MyDownloads for the PDF version)
We view the subject Option Agreement as a serious situation with potentially great negative
impact on our community and the financial integrity of the Port of Camas/WashougaL We need
help. If the Attorney General of the State of Washington cannot help us then we would
respectfully request advice on how to proceed in our attempt to get the subject Option
Agreement declared null and void.
The signatories to this letter are former Port of Camas/Washougal commissioners.
Sincerely, (please see page 2 for signatures and "copies- to")
John Raynor
718 N.E. 4th Ave.
Camas, Washington
98607
360-834-4527
Bill Macrea Smith
4312 Gifford Place
Washougal, Washington
98671
360-835-5475
cc Port of Camas/Washougal
24 South A Street
Washougal, Washington 98671
Port of Camas/Washougal Commissioners
Allan Hargrave
Richard Gunderson
Jim Carroll
CCIA membership meeting November 14th - 7:00 pm
Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 11:23 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA will have a membership meeting on November 14th, 7:00pm at the Camas Police Station
Community Room. The address is 2100 NE 3rd Ave., Camas, WA.
This meeting is for current members. Come and join the Concerned Citizens In Action Board of
Directors for a regular meeting. On the agenda will be nominations for board member positions
that are up for election. Learn what CCIA has done during it's very busy first year, and learn
what is coming next in year number two. Light healthy snacks and drinks will be provided.
For questions about this meeting or about CCIA, call (360) 852-5151 or (360) 835-1070.
The Port responds by NOT responding to the Public's Questions
Sunday, September 23 2007 @ 12:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners gave the public their response to a request for
answers to the public's questions regarding the proposed RiverWalk development on Monday
September 17th during their regular meeting. Their response? No response.
The original response from the Port at their August 22nd regular meeting was a draft of
Frequently Asked Questions which has now been posted on the Port's website under the
RiverWalk section. This fell short of answering the public's questions (see the document under
"MyDownloads" which details the response, the questions from the public, and suggestions to
the Port as to how they can more directly answer these questions).
Apparently a letter had been mailed to CCIA with an answer to our request that they more
directly respond to important and intelligent questions that the public asked at the June 21st
Public Forum. At the time of the Port regular meeting, CCIA had not received the letter. We
finally received it this week, after the Port regular meeting. This may or may not have been the
fault of the Port. Below is a copy of that letter from Port Commissioner Alan Hargrave. Please
note that the response is to CCIA, and not to the public, from which all of these questions
originally came. Also note that the sentence in bold was also bold in the letter itself (see copy of
original letter in the "MyDownloads" section). We brought the Port your message, and it appears
that they no longer wish to respond to the public.
PORToF
CAMAS-WASHOUGAL
September 12, 2007
Martha Martin, Ph.D.,
President, Concerned Citizens In Action (CCIA)
P.O. Box 64, Washougal, WA 98671
We acknowledge the receipt of your letter and comments on the FAQs received September 10,
2007. The FAQs, as presented at the August 22, 2007, regular Port of Camas-Washougal
Commission Meeting, accurately reflected answers to a majority of the frequently asked
questions posed by the general public and the CCIA, with information as available to the Port at
the time. The FAQs also articulated the position of the current Port of Camas-Washougal Board
of Commissioners.
We appreciate the CCIA questions that were presented to the Port Commission on July 16, 2007.
The CCIA questions have certainly added to the FAQs project that was already in progress
following the release of the WAC Final Report in early June. The FAQs will be updated as
information becomes available.
We are currently working on a draft master plan and a Master Development Agreement (MDA)
that will further outline the next steps for the proposed waterfront redevelopment project. The
Port Board of Commissioners fully supports the Waterfront Advisory Committee's
recommendations, requiring them to be incorporated into any master development plan that
might be approved. Additional public information material and meeting(s) are being considered
and planned as appropriate to communicate this proposed community project.
At this time, we have no further information and will not have an open discussion to add to the
agenda for the September 17th Commission Meeting as you requested. The Port of Camas-
Washougal is committed to an open public process and we will make available appropriate
information as we receive it. Please feel free to subscribe to the proposed project's e-bulletins
at www.portcw.com/distributions/subscribe.php or watch for notices in the local newspapers on
the progress of this proposed project.
Thank you for your input.
Sincerely,
Alan Hargrave
President, Port of Camas-Washougal Board of Commissioners
Cc:
Sherrie Ard, Assistant State Auditor
Waterfront Advisory Committee
24 South 'A: Street, Washougal WA 98671
Phone: 360-835-2196• Fax: 360-835-2197
Email: info@portcw.com • WEB Page: www.portcw.com
Request to the Commissioners: "Please respond at your next Port Meeting"
Thursday, September 13 2007 @ 09:48 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
After many hours of review, an analysis has been completed comparing the Public's questions
that were posed at the June 21st Public Forum, and the Frequently Asked Questions document
that was presented by the Commissioners in response. This document presents your questions,
and attempts to glean some answers from the FAQs. It also includes how well the questions
were or were not answered, comments on the answers, and suggestions for how to more
directly respond to the Public's questions. The document is available for download at
MyDownloads (CLICK above).
CLICK on "Read More" below for the Introduction to that analysis.
Please attend the September 17th regular Port meeting at 4pm. We have requested that the
Commissioners respond with complete answers to your questions.
"How well do the Port's FAQs answer the questions posed by the public for the Commissioners
to answer? "
At a public forum held on June 21st, 2007 at Washougal High School, sponsored by Concerned
Citizens In Action, many questions were generated from the comments of the nearly 200 local
citizens in attendance. It is important to understand that these questions are those of the
general public, and are only being relayed to the Port Commissioners by CCIA. We promised
those attending that we would do our best to obtain answers to their questions from the Camas-
Washougal Port Commissioners. These were condensed down to 19 questions that were
formally presented to the Commissioners at their regular meeting on July 16th, with the request
to have answers ready at their regular meeting on August 22nd.
The Commissioner's response was to have staff members attempt to answer the request in the
form of a Frequently Asked Questions list. The following analysis is our best effort to glean
answers to the public's questions from this FAQ list. The only question that was directly
answered was B: "Would the commissioners be interested in a vote to find out what the
majority of the public wants for their waterfront?" The answer was NO. There were 3 questions
that were poorly or partially answered, 12 questions that were not answered although the FAQs
touched on relevant issues, and 4 questions that were not addressed in any way in the FAQs.
The FAQ list demonstrates that the Port would like to better educate the public. We are pleased
to know that the Port shares our interest in better informing the public. However, we think the
Port’s FAQ list falls short of this goal. We have indicated in our analysis which questions appear
to remain unanswered or only partially answered. We are requesting direct answers to the 18
questions we think have not been properly or completely answered. We are asking for time on
the September 17th regular Port meeting agenda to receive the Commissioner’s complete
answers to the public’s questions. If the Port believes that their FAQ list does in fact answer
certain of these questions, we ask that a workshop be held to allow those particular questions
to be explored in an open forum.
Message read to Port at September 4th regular meeting by a member
Thursday, September 06 2007 @ 05:46 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
My name is Gary Cole, my family and I live in Washougal.
Many of you have heard me speak on be half of myself and Concerned Citizens In Action. I want
to make it clear I’m speaking for myself today with my thoughts and concerns.
There have been questions raised about “Who is the CCIA?” and “What is the CCIA up to?” I
joined the group of concerned citizens only after attending WAC and Port Meetings in regards to
Riverwalk.
My main concern at that time was maintaining Boater access and trailer parking, after having
doubts from the proposed plans. I felt when I spoke to the WAC members and the Port
Commissioners, my thoughts may be not have been taken seriously and with low priority. I also
learned that WAC’s charge was not to be a voice of the public, but rather only to recommend
the wisest and best long term use of the waterfront resources for the maximum public benefit. I
also found that WAC was not addressing the other numerous and “specific” questions being
asked by the public. Their concern seemed to be design concepts, types of businesses and how
to reduce Parkers Landing Historical Park, but include it in the overall theme.
They did not ask questions like: How much? Who’s paying? Who’s profiting, what’s to gain and
more importantly what are the potential losses?
I also heard WAC members, several times dilute “specific” concerns and statements when
brought up by other WAC members. Because they wanted to keep the final report in general
terms. To protect themselves individually and allow the Port Commissioners and the Developers
the ability to interpret the report as they desired.
That’s when I found and joined other concerned citizens to find out more. Which has opened my
eyes to numerous other concerns and questions that relate to the way the proposed
development was originated, several items in or not in the lease agreement, the cost’s to
taxpayers, the potential financial gains and losses, etc.
The CCIA presented the Port Commissioners with the “specific” questions they received in their
public forum and respectfully asked those questions be “specifically” answered. The public has
a right to “specific” answers. Generalized answers and statements only fuel the fire for more
speculation, further increasing the public’s concerns, and diminishing the publics trust in their
elected officials. Trust’s main ingredient is Honesty. Without Honesty and Trust with our Peers,
we all loose our most important personal quality, our Integrity.
Those questions presented are only a few of the questions that are out there to be answered,
there are several more.
As a Realtor, if I was representing the Seller and in this case the Seller is all of us since this is
public property. I would have major concerns towards my fiducial responsibility to my client if I
allowed them to sign such an agreement, and the potential for a law suit for my lack of
performance. I would have at the very least demanded my client seek legal advice from an out of
area, third party legal consultant experienced in this type of transaction. Some of my concerns
would have been:
No escape clause for my client, in this case the Port and the Public.
No performance requirements for the Lessees or Developers.
No performance bonds required to guarantee completion of the project.
What happens if the project is 90% completed and 110% of the funds are spent?
Also the ability for the Developers to find another party to sell to and purchase their interests
without the approval of the Port Commissioners. Which would also allow the new Developers to
do 100% of what they want, again without the Port Commissioners approval.
There’s also nothing to stop the Buyers or Lessees from taking their Developer fees throughout
the project and then walking away prior to completion, leaving the Port and the Public with an
incomplete project and undoubtedly further expense to complete the project.
Another concern due to it’s timing, is the recent change in Port Leadership. Without full and
honest disclosure this will only add fuel to the fire of the public’s speculation, and speculation
is almost always negative in nature.
I ask you what is the public to think, except to suspect Cover Up or even more likely after 22
years of fine service, that he did not agree with the current Commissioners and their plans. So
he was removed, to remove internal opposition during the key time frame of the next 4 months,
and paid “hush” money to keep his concerns and disagreements to himself.
I feel it’s time for all parties to be more open and honest, providing explanations and specific
answers as requested, to rebuild the publics Trust and individuals Integrity.
Remember what we teach our children; Honesty is the best policy!
And it’s never too late to make things right.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you to all who attended the August 22nd Port Meeting
Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Over 85 people attended the August 22nd Port Meeting. In response to our request for answers
to the public's questions from the June 21st Public Forum, the Port offered a list of "Frequently
Asked Questions" which have now been posted on the Port's website.
Read through the list and compare these to the questions in "Public Concerns", which were the
ones presented by the public. Let us know whether you have the answers that you need. We
will follow up with your feedback.
Again, thanks to all who attended the 4pm meeting. Keep attending and let the Port know your
questions and concerns.
Updated Membership Application
Monday, August 27 2007 @ 09:10 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA has updated its membership application (Click on "MyDownloads"). The signature line has
been changed, with the requirement that members understand (rather than agree to) our
purpose: to hold government accountable to the public while serving the public interest. Also,
there are categories for people who wish to help to indicate their interests.
We have heard and taken seriously the feedback that the membership requirements, such as
having a sponsor, or signing the application, may be too restrictive. We hope it may help to
understand our process by knowing the requirements of joining other similar organizations.
Many non-profit organizations require sponsorship to join, such as local business women's
groups and other philanthropic organizations. They may also require an extensivie application
be completed, which is reviewed by their membership for approval, as well as requiring
payment of dues before people are allowed to join. Our requirements are much less. CCIA only
requires that you fill out the membership form, inquire about sponsorship by contacting us at
the phone numbers on the form, and list that person who sponsors you. There is no cost to join.
Your membership application is reviewed by our board of directors. All citizens are welcome to
contact us for sponsorship, and complete a membership application. We encourage people to
call or write with questions about Concerned Citizens In Action.
Please watch our website for our next membership and guests meeting date and location. You
can have an opportunity to join CCIA, ask questions about our organization, meet the Board of
Directors, and learn about our projects regarding holding government accountable. We hope to
see you there!
Attend the August 22nd regular Port meeting for answers.
Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action presented the questions and comments from the June 21st Public
Forum to the Port Commissioners yesterday, July 16th, at the Port of Camas-Washougal Port
office. We presented the Commissioners and the attending public with a written copy of all
questions and comments. This is also posted in our "Public Concerns" section. To view this,
CLICK on the "Public Concerns" link at the top of this page.
We have requested that the Port Commissioners respond to the questions and comments
presented at the July 16th Port meeting by the August 22nd regular Port meeting at 4pm. Attend
this meeting to get answers to your questions regarding the proposed RiverWalk development
project.
The June 21st Public Forum Video tape was transcribed so that all questions asked and
comments expressed by those attending could be gathered and put into a format for
distribution. We presented the Port Commissioners with questions that were directly asked of
them, as well as comments that were related to input for the Port.
We want to thank all citizens who attended the July 16th Port of Camas-Washougal regular
meeting. We hope that you continue to attend Port meetings, as well as Washougal City Council
meetings, Camas City Council meetings, and other public meetings. Your voice as a citizen is
important.
To view the copy of the handout distribute to the Port Commisioners and those attending the
July 16th meeting, CLICK on the "Public Concerns" link at the top of this page.
Welcome and Public Forum Information
Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 09:04 AM PDT
Contributed by: Admin
Welcome to the new home of Concerned Citizens in Action here on the Internet.
This site is continually changing, so visit often. Comments are encouraged.
Concerned Citizens In Action is a Washington State non-profit corporation. We currently have
nine board members, which include four officers: President, Vice President, Treasurer, and
Secretary. Our current focus is the Port of Camas-Washougal's proposed project and
partnership with RiverWalk LLC. We will be looking at other public concerns in the future.
Thank You to All Who Attended the June 21st Public Forum!
Please note that CCIA presented to the Port on July 16th during their 4pm regular meeting.
A copy of the presentation is posted in the "Public Concerns" section link at the top of this page.
CCIA's Public Forum, held at Washougal High School in the Washburn auditorim, was a huge
success. Nearly 200 people attended, and those who spoke offered thoughtful ideas, opinions,
and concerns regarding the proposed RiverWalk development at the Port of Camas-Washougal.
We had several council people who came, a diversity of citizens from both Washougal and
Camas, and Port administrative staff. We want to thank all of you who took time to come and
participate in this public forum that was "by the public and for the public".
During the forum, information expressed by the public was recorded on flip charts, by video,
and audio, and is currently posted on our website. We have distributed this information to the
Port Commissioners, and will be distributing it to the Cities of Washougal and Camas, and other
agencies and government offices. We will be researching your questions, and getting those
questions answered, or letting you know where to find answers.
There are new documents on our website to download that were requested by the public. We
have added a copy of the Option Agreement that the Port signed to form the partnership with
RiverWalk, LLC. Many people have not had the opportunity to see this document. It is public
record, but was never presented openly to the public. The other document is a memo (also part
of public record) that describes the proposed project in detail, including types of buildings to be
constructed and the sizes, as well as the details regarding community development or
condemnation. This document was never openly presented to the public.
Watch our site for updates regarding future events and activities. We want to continue to hear
from you. You may contact us by email at wolflow1@netzero.net, by phone at (360) 835-1070 or
(360) 852-5151, or by mail at P.O. Box 64, Washougal, WA 98671. Let us know your concerns,
thoughts, ideas, and what you may want to do to become involved.
To download any of our public documents, click on "MyDownloads" on the top of our website.
To learn more about Public Concerns and questions, click on "Public Concerns" above.
About Concerned Citizens In Action
Sunday, May 27 2007 @ 05:33 PM PDT
Contributed by: Admin
Concerned Citizens In Action is a Washington State non-profit corporation. It is made up of nine
board members:
Martha Martin, President
Bill Ward, Vice President
Roger Daniels, Treasurer
Mariann Guetter, Secretary
Jeff Guard, board member
Bernice Pluchos, board member
Ceil Kirchner, board member
Susan Stauffer, board member
Richard Hamby, board member
CCIA's Principal Purpose: To hold government accountable to the public while serving the
public interest.
CCIA's Ancillary Purposes:
• To educate the public about the importance of holding government accountable to the public.
• To secure resources from individuals, corporations, and other foundations which will then be
distributed in a manner which will support programs for which federal, state and local funding
is inadequate or otherwise not available.
• To enhance community support for holding government accountable to the public.
• To provide direct support to other charitable organizations created to hold the government
accountable to the public.
• To cooperate with business, industry, government agencies, and individual to develop and
promote programs and activities designed to hold government accountable.
• To raise and administer funds to support capital and educational/operational needs in keeping
with the intent of donors and the objectives of the Concerned Citizens In Action.
• To serve as trustee of any revocable or irrevocable trust according to the provisions of a trust
instrument and Washington State law. Provided, Concerned Citizens In Action may accept an
appointment as trustee only upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board of Directors
present at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors, if such notice of the
proposed appointment to service as trustee is contained in the notice of the meeting.
Concerned Citizens In Action welcomes new members with a sponsorship from one of our board
members.
Interested persons can download the application from our website, or request one be mailed by
dropping us a note at P.O. Box 64, Washougal, WA 98671. There are no dues but donations are
gratefully accepted. Our current project is the proposed project and partnership between the
Port of Camas-Washougal, and RiverWalk LLC.
Response to Rich Gunderson's letter to the editor by local Washougal resident
Friday, May 11 2007 @ 04:17 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
A local Washougal resident, Richard Anderson, posted this response in our commment section.
It is his response to the letter to the editor in the Post Record dated 05/08/07 entitled " Port
invites public feedback" which was submitted by Rich Gunderson, Port of Camas-Washougal
Commission President.
He gave his permission to have it posted on our feature page. Mr. Anderson includes Mr.
Gunderson's letter with Mr. Anderson's responses.
(Mr. Gunderson writes: )
“Port cities all over the country are engaged in ways to reshape and redefine their waterfronts.
Communities of all sizes have transformed underused waterfront areas for a wide array of new
uses, from parks and trails to mixed-use and residential projects, as well as industrial activity.”
(Mr. Anderson's response:)
Communities don’t transform their port areas, wealthy developers like RiverWalk-LLC do. That’s
why the Washington State Government is working on legislation to stop developers like
RiverWalk-LLC from using privileges of ‘eminent domain’ to muscle home grown business and
home owners out of their properties. Try an Internet search for, “RiverWalk LCC” and you’ll see
just how huge and influential these wealthy developers have become nation-wide.
(RG) “When a group like RiverWalk, LLC, approached the Port of Camas-Washougal with an
opportunity to jointly explore ideas to revitalize the waterfront, it simply made sense for the port
to consider these possibilities. These days, private-public partnerships are often the key to
many successful projects due to limited public funds and increasing development costs. “
(RA) The Port didn’t just “explore or consider” RiverWalks’ “opportunities”- they spent $200,000
in public funds on a study of RiverWalks’ Condominium & supporting Mini-Mall development
proposal. If the proposal is eventually deemed not in the public interest, our public funds are
lost forever.
(RG) “With the formation of the member Waterfront Advisory Committee [WAC], we hope great
ideas and unrealized opportunities will emerge — improve waterfront access, create new
economic activity, preserve and enhance historic sites, and inject new energy into our
community. Sponsored by the Port of Camas-Washougal, the WAC represents a cross-section of
our citizens with diverse perspectives to provide a strong community voice. They have met, and
taken public comments, regularly since last October to share their ideas for this key community
undertaking.”
(RA) The WAC was formed months after an audience of over 300 local concerned residents at
the WHS Gymnasium gave Roberta Tidland a resounding standing ovation for her remarks
against the RiverWalk proposal to use local improved Park property to build Condominiums and
a supporting Mini Mall. The WAC is by no means a representative sample of the local community
– it is made up of mostly professional Business Owners, Bankers, Engineers, Managers and CEO’
s with few members likely below the $100,000 annual income level.
(RG) “The WAC recognizes that our community’s quality of life draws from a unique blend of
natural beauty, small town friendliness, historical values, and an abundance of recreational
opportunities. Their goal is to gather a list of features for the best long-term uses of waterfront
resources for maximum public benefit.”
(RA) Then why allow RiverWalk-LCC into our Community? All these developers want is to
pound out of our local government a license for them to build very profitable Condominiums
and shops which would effectively do away with of the small town qualities mentioned above.
(RG) “Throughout this process, the Waterfront Advisory Committee has informed the public of
their progress, and reached out for public input and comment. They are currently compiling the
top and best-use priorities, with public input, that will be submitted to the port commissioners.
These recommendations will contribute to the first steps in creating a blueprint for a waterfront
vision for current and future generations.”
(RA) In his concluding comments to its April 25 meeting, the C-W Port’s ‘WAC’ hired spokesman
Arnold Cogan admitted that, “the Committee was never intended to represent the public.” They
were selected by the Port to help promote their $200,000 Condo propaganda via the guise of
public input.
(RG) “The first draft of a master plan for the waterfront will be next, and throughout this
process, the port welcomes you to stay informed and get involved. You may simply want to get
the latest information as the plan takes shape, and invite us to speak to you and your group.
Whatever your level of interest, we encourage you to learn more and watch for news in port
newsletters, and at www.PortCW.com where all meeting notices, reports and activities are
posted.”
(RA) If the Port were really serious about seeking public input they would use a large meeting
hall like the WHS’s new auditorium instead of trying to jam hundreds of local folks into the
limited space available at the C-W Port Office. Thankfully, another group has reserved this
facility for a public meeting:
The community needs to weigh in heavily! Plan to participate in a truly open forum to be hosted
by Concerned Citizens In Action (CCIA) on June 21, at 6:30 pm in the Washburn Performing
Arts Center at Washougal High School. Your voice is essential toward developing your
waterfront for the greatest benefit to the community as a whole.
(RG) “The port owes it to the public to explore these concepts that may ultimately enhance our
economy and our waterfront. The mission of the port is to create and sustain jobs and
recreational opportunities for this community. We believe that now is the time to take a good
hard look at these possibilities that hold the potential to improve our economy and our
waterfront.”
(RA) The Port should “create and sustain jobs” in the Industrial Park property which prior Port
Commissioners purchased and zoned for that purpose. We already have recreational facilities
near the Port Office in the form of a Marina and Public Parks. The Ports’ argument that high-
rise Condominiums built on confiscated Park land, Marina parking land and eminent domain-
leveraged buyouts of local business land constitutes fulfillment of their public “Mission” to
promote jobs is essentially a self-serving misrepresentation of the C-W Port Charter.
Richard Anderson
Washougal, WA
Local Citizen writes "Attention All Trailer Boaters"
Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Local Washougal Citizen Gary Cole has expressed concerns regarding how the proposed Port
project with RiverWalk LLC could impact Trailer Boaters. He has asked for a copy of his letter to
the editor to be posted on our website. The following are the contents of his letter:
Attention All Trailer Boaters
With the arrival of May we will soon celebrate the start of Boating Season. But, while we've had
our boats tucked away for the winter, the Port of Camas-Washougal has been making plans to
reduce boat trailer parking at the publicly owned boat ramp we enjoy.
Boaters seem oblivious to this situation and future impact. If we Boaters don't wake up and get
involved soon, we'll drive to our favorite boat ramp and find no place to park. We'll have to
launch and return the trailer home and back again. Along with the major inconvenience, this
will cause unnecessary congestion at the marina. The other option effects all Clark County
Boaters; we'll be faced to use other limited ramp facilities, filling their already overcrowded
trailer parking.
"RiverWalk" has mentioned dry rack (stack) storage; There are two type of Boaters: marina/slip
boaters who might be interested in dry rack storage and trailer boaters like myself. I prefer
loading my boat at home, saving time at the ramp and unloading at home at my leisure, etc. Also
being able to do maintenance at home and most of all having my boat in my control to use at
other facilities and lakes, as I wish.
This ramp/launch facility is currently on publicly owned property, an agreement has been made
to lease it to Developers who would take over control and manage as they see most profitable.
Not to mention the costs of the infrastructure improvements that will be paid by the tax paying
public, who haven't even had a chance to vote on it or truly have their concerns considered. It
appears local debvelpers have persuaded port commissioners that retail shops and
condominiums are more important than Boater's access to the river (our area's most important
recreational resource) now and well into the future. The Camas-Washougal boat ramp facility is
the most used facility south of Olympia, and a major asset to our area, let's insure it's there for
future generations. Are you with me, to do all we can, so this does not become reality? For more
information, to add your comments and join the concerned (showing strength in numbers) go
to: www.concernedcitizensinaction.org.
Gary Cole
Washougal
New discussion Forum
Saturday, April 14 2007 @ 10:13 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA has added a Forum to our site. Click on the link above and participate in discussions
regarding the listed topics. You must be a registered user to post, and all users can view posts.
CCIA is hosting Public Forum on Thursday, June 21st at 6:30pm at the Washougal High School.
We will be meeting in the Washburn Performing Arts Center. Come and join us, and take this
opportunity to express your opinions and ideas regarding the Port of Camas-Washougal's
proposed waterfront development. We will be taking your input and presenting it to the Port,
and to local and state officials. This forum is by the public and for the public, so it offers a
chance to have all ideas and concerns openly expressed. We will also have information that you
may request to be sent to you following the forum.
We hope to see you there! Bring your friends and neighbors. All are welcome.
President Martin
Critics raise concerns on RiverWalk project
Thursday, April 12 2007 @ 09:52 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Critics raise concerns on Riverwalk project
Thursday, April 12, 2007
BY DEAN BAKER Columbian staff writer
WASHOUGAL - With four critics raising sharp questions, the Port of Camas-Washougal's
waterfront advisory committee Wednesday night accepted a summary of the comments from 91
area residents on the proposed $300 million Riverwalk development.
In general, the public seemed to support the proposed 65-acre project. The 91 commented
during or since an open house on March 28. They said they want to be sure the commercial-
residential riverside development suits the Camas-Washougal area's ambiance.
They want it built on an easily accessible, small scale. They want it to respect and enhance the
history of the area, guarantee clear sight lines to the river and Mount Hood, give boat and
pedestrian access to the river and preserve green, natural areas.
They want the new project to enhance rather than disrupt existing downtown businesses.
That's a tall order for private Riverwalk LLC partners Marilee Thompson, Rick Bowler, Mark and
Mary Benson, John and Nancy McKibbin, and their public partners, the port commissioners.
The port and the developers each have committed $200,000 and two years to planning the
development node that would sweep along the river from Union Street to a point east of
Hambleton Lumber Co. The plan is to start building in 2008 and work on the project for eight to
10 years.
But a group called Concerned Citizens in Action has balked, complaining the plan has lacked
public input and that the developers were chosen swiftly in nonpublic sessions without benefit
of an open search for other business options.
Richard Hamby and his wife, Martha Martin, said they've been unable to find out why the project
is being hurried along or what the special qualifications are of the Riverwalk partners. "We'd
like you to tell us why this is the wisest and best use for the maximum public benefit," said
Martin, a Washougal psychologist.
Hamby said the process of launching the development idea "started off real clumsy," without
time for adequate public comment.
Lawrence Dvorak, a resident of the area for more than 60 years, said inadequate consideration
has been given to the fact that the river floods on occasion and could endanger the
development. "It's a delicate area here, and you are encouraging a bad thing," he said.
"Once you lose this," he added, gesturing through the port windows at the river, "you can't get
it back."
He also objected to the use of any public money for the development.
John Wagoner said he's been using the port marina for more than 40 years. He said the
proposal before the public provides far too little parking for the huge influx of boaters in the
summer.
"We are the citizens. We use the river. We don't want to lose it," he said to applause to those
attending.
Members of the committee agreed to consider all questions before they hand their
recommendations back to the port commissioners for action by the end of May.
Update
Previously: Port of Camas-Washougal commissioners signed an agreement in October 2005
with Riverwalk LLC to lay preliminary plans for a proposed 65-acre, $300 million development on
the Columbia River between Union Street and the east end of Hambleton Lumber Co.
What's new: During a two-hour session Wednesday night, 33 persons turned out - and several
objected - as the port's 13-member waterfront advisory committee discussed how to shape the
proposed project.
What's next: The committee will meet again April 25 to draft recommendations for the proposed
development. Construction could begin next year and take up to a decade to complete.
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/04122007news125930.cfm
April 6, 2007 Columbian Editorial: Limiting Condemnation with a New Bill
Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:45 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
In Our View: Eminently Sensible
Friday April 6, 2007
By Columbian editorial staff
Bill limiting condemnation of land by ports for tourism projects could be felt here
A bill moving through the Legislature might take the eminent domain hammer out of the hands
of the Port of Camas-Washougal in the proposed 65-acre RiverWalk project on the banks of the
Columbia. The same thing goes for any other port district in the state that gets into the
business of attracting tourists, which was made easier by the same bill.
That’s good, which is not to say RiverWalk or other potential port projects are a bad idea if done
right with public input. But condemning private property for a nonpublic benefit is bad policy.
The bill in the state that passed the House of Representatives 89-7 Wednesday paved the legal
road for a waterfront development in Bremerton that would involve the local port district as a
participant. A provision would have allowed port districts to seek condemnation of private land
under eminent domain.
But the American public has been rightly outraged by local governments condemning private
land for private projects, thanks to exposure of the practice on the “60 Minutes” program and a
2005 U.S. Supreme court Case, Kelo vs. New London, Conn.
An amendment by Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, that had bipartisan support removed the
power of eminent domain from port districts that might otherwise have used it to get land for
tourism-promotion purposes.
“We feel eminent domain has a place with schools, hospitals, roads and other things of public
necessity,” Curtis said Thursday, “but not tourist facilities. We don’t want the taking of
someone’s land” for that purpose.
At the same time, other aspects of the bill, SB 5339, appear to clear the way for all ports to get
into the tourism-promotion business. Given that port districts typically own waterfront property,
which is a natural draw, and given that ports are supposed to create jobs, the bill has much to
commend it and could influence future developments at ports all along the Columbia River. But
it’s best to do that by purchasing private land, not condemning it.
Byron Hanke, consultant to the Port of Camas-Washougal on the proposed RiverWalk project,
said Thursday that talks between the port and private landowners in the “footprint” of the
proposed development are ongoing but have not produced any deals so far.
“At this point, eminent domain has not entered into the conversations on this project,” Hanke
said.
Much of the 65 acres is owned by the port, but a large chunk is Hambleton Lumber Co. land.
The Parker House Restaurant is another privately owned parcel.
As if further evidence were needed that RiverWalk has its critics, Roger Daniels of Washougal,
a leader of Concerned Citizens in Action, fired off an e-mail Thursday saying he was “delighted”
to read about Curtis’ amendment passing. “Maybe Hambleton Brothers may soon have some
protection,” Daniels said.
Vancouver Business Journal article
Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 08:21 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Vancouver Business Journal
Friday, March 16, 2007
RiverWalk Under Scrutiny
Advocacy group vague on plan, but looking to change port policy
By Megan Patrick
VBJ Staff Reporter
A new public advocacy group, Concerned Citizens in Action, wants to change the way ports and
other government agencies conduct business, and is using the proposed Riverwalk
development as a springboard. Riverwalk is planned for the Camas-Washougal waterfront.
The group claims not to be taking issue with the development or its developers, Riverwalk on
the Columbia LLC, but rather the Port of Camas-Washougal. The port didn't break any rules in
entering into the agreement with the developers, but was not acting as a good steward of the
community in the process, said CCIA Treasurer Roger Daniels.
On Nov. 8, 2005, the two groups entered into a lease option agreement, forming a joint public-
private partnership and committing both sides to spending up to $200,000 each to conduct
feasibility studies on the land Riverwalk hopes to transform into a high-density mixed use
development of retail shops, restaurants, condominiums and recreational facilities. The
agreement expires on Nov. 7 of this year.
The lease agreement was presented and signed at the same port commission meeting, not
giving the public a chance to speak out or even understand what was being proposed, said
CCIA President Martha Martin.
Ports are required to give 24 hours notice to the media when a special meeting is called, and
the Port of Camas-Washougal did that, said Executive Director Sheldon Tyler.
"They did the bare minimum in letting the public know what was being negotiated," Daniels
said. "Our goal is to make the Port of Camas-Washougal commissioners the example of how not
to operate."
The group has a "pretty elaborate plan," is working with state agencies and hopes to have some
answers by fall, he said.
John McKibbin, one of Riverwalk on the Columbia LLC's principal partners, said the CCIA is
stuck in the past.
"Was it legal? Yes," he said. "Was it consistent with the way ports conduct business? Yes.
People think (the port is) a municipality, but ports operate under different statutes; they were
formed to create jobs and build the local economy. As such, they have half a foot in the private
sector, but are still public."
Ports commonly conduct land-use negotiations in executive session, said Charla Skaggs, a
spokeswoman for the Washington Public Ports Assoc.
But Daniels said there should be rules against introducing and passing an agreement of
Riverwalk's magnitude and impact at the same meeting with very little notice.
"It is very poor government operation," he said. "It didn't need to occur so quickly. If they truly
cared about support from the community, they would have alerted the public to their plans or
conducted hearings."
Since the lease option agreement was signed, the port formed a 13-member Waterfront
Advisory Committee, which meets regularly to make recommendations for the wisest long-term
use of waterfront resources for maximum public benefit.
It is designed to be an advisory branch independent of the port and the developers, but Martin
said the committee members weren't chosen randomly and many of them are close associates,
friends or colleagues of the developers.
Tyler doesn't deny that some of the committee members have agendas; some in regard to the
development, others for protecting parks and green spaces.
Martin is also concerned that the port didn't open the project to bids.
Initially, Riverwalk on the Columbia LLC approached the port commission with the development.
"These developers don't have a track record with a project of this scale," she said. "They're
residential developers. With the lease-hold tax option as opposed to a sales tax, the goal is to
split the profits 50-50, but it's hard to know what those numbers are going to be because there's
no track records."
There is no legal requirement for the port to seek bid proposals, and McKibbin said ports rarely
do.
The lease option is for 50 years with an option for a 30-year extension, Martin said, during
which no one else can develop on the property.
"So when that is said and done, the port will be stuck with 80-year-old buildings," she said.
"Who is going to pay for upkeep then?"
Daniels said the group supports development on the river, "but we want a open, collaborative,
truly community-driven project if it’s going to happen on public land."
Currently, the developers, represented by Vancouver attorney Stephen W. Horenstein, are
putting together the master development agreement that will finalize the terms of the private-
public venture, set to be enacted on Nov. 8. The terms must be mutually agreed upon, Tyler
stressed.
Once the Waterfront Advisory Committee finalizes its recommendations, they go to the port
commission for review. Riverwalk on the Columbia LLC will then design a project proposal that
will go to the City of Washougal for site plan review.
The city will hold public hearings, and assuming the project gets the go-ahead from the city, the
developers will draw up preliminary entitlements for engineering and roads and then must gain
final approval from the city before any dirt can be turned, McKibbin said.
That point is at least a year away, he said.
The port commission is still very much in charge, Tyler said. And the developers are ready to
look into the future.
"Frankly, I'm done with (this group)," McKibbin said. "This issue is 15 months old. The bottom
line is that we're going to generate 1,045 jobs on the build-out and millions of dollars in
revenues and open up the waterfront, which is not open now unless you're a boater.
"There are a few people still living 15 months in the past, and I think they're going to be stuck
there. This is the track we're on."
Attend the August 22nd regular Port meeting for answers.
Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action presented the questions and comments from the June 21st Public
Forum to the Port Commissioners yesterday, July 16th, at the Port of Camas-Washougal Port
office. We presented the Commissioners and the attending public with a written copy of all
questions and comments. This is also posted in our "Public Concerns" section. To view this,
CLICK on the "Public Concerns" link at the top of this page.
We have requested that the Port Commissioners respond to the questions and comments
presented at the July 16th Port meeting by the August 22nd regular Port meeting at 4pm. Attend
this meeting to get answers to your questions regarding the proposed RiverWalk development
project.
Public Concerns Regarding the RiverWalk Proposed Project
July 16, 2007 Presentation to the Port of Camas-Washougal
Public Questions and Comments from the June 21, 2007 Public Forum
Sponsored by Concerned Citizens In Action
Questions posed by the public for the Commissioners to answer:
• How do the commissioners justify turning this publicly owned land over to private developers
for profits instead of maintaining the current public uses?
• The public would like to put this to a vote. They would like to decide if this project is
something they want. Since this proposed project is larger than previous projects and requires
a much larger financial commitment, would the port commissioners consider allowing the
public to place this on a ballot? Would the commissioners be interested in a vote to find out
what the majority of the public wants for their waterfront?
• The public expressed concerns about using public money to fund the feasibility study before
finding out if this is a direction they want to go. What has been spent to date, do you have
detailed itemized expenditures for what has been currently spent as well as what will be spent,
and how much of that is included in public records?
• The public is concerned about loss of public access, with this being the most utilized portion
of public lands that is unencumbered by the railroad. What will you do to keep or increase
public and recreational access, as is stated in the Shorelines Management Act of 1971?
• What do the commissioners know about the projected profit from this project? How much of
this profit will come from the citizens of Camas and Washougal? This is in reference to the
possible need to use taxes for purchase of property, the costs to get the property pad ready, and
other concerns regarding costs the public must cover.
• The public is requesting what the commissioners think is the actual profit to the developers
vs. what the public will eventually see as a gain or advantage for them?
• The public is concerned about the cost to acquire additional private property. What are the
projected property purchase costs to acquire enough land for the entire 65 acres? Will there be
a raise in taxes to pay for this?
• The public is asking why they were not considered first in this venture before partnering with
the developers. What about a totally public option being considered first?
• Will the commissioners support the use of eminent domain or condemnation to acquire
additional private property as was described in the Option Agreement signed in November of
2005?
• How will the commissioners guarantee that the boating public will have adequate boat trailer
parking? Four lanes require at least 200 spaces, and we currently have 135. Will there be
enough boat trailer parking throughout the several phases of development? Some of the
conceptual drawings show no boat trailer parking at all, and another shows boat trailer parking
being added in the future, about 5-6 years. Is this what the commissioners want? Will the
commissioners guarantee at least the current level of boat trailer parking for the 6 to 8 years of
development? Has the Port started the permit process for a new boat launch and trailer
parking?
• The public has expressed concern about the need for this development to be “economically
feasible”, and the public also is concerned about the value of the public’s recreational use and
access or availability to this natural and valuable resource from now and into the future. How
do the commissioners view the value of this area? How do they see this in regards to a legacy
for future generations? How will they guarantee the public will continue to have access to this
pubic land into the future?
• What is the reason to bring in a “general manager” (referring to Scot Walstra) at this late
date? The public is wondering when consideration of “every question” will be done and
answered before moving forward with this project? Will the commissioners leave time for
deliberation of all public concerns before giving the “green light” to this project?
• The public has expressed concern that the process for environmental and archeological
protections has not begun. What is being considered in regards to protecting the Shoreline and
Columbia River in regards to this project? What will be the steps taken?
• What is the commissioners understanding of the 50/50 profit split with the developers? How
much are they expecting and how will these profits be used?
• How will the City of Camas be involved in this project? How will they benefit?
• There still is confusion about the type of taxes and the amount of tax infusion into our local
schools, cities, services, and libraries. What is the understanding of the commissioners
regarding the taxes to be made from this project? How do you arrive at these numbers and can
you explain them in plain language for the public?
• The public is concerned about the local retail space that remains unfilled, and this project
increasing the amount of current retail space. What will the commissioners do to get retail
space filled?
• The Public is asking what the commissioners understand about the Option Agreement. Can
they slow down the process and delay signing a lease/contract until concerns can be addressed
and questions can be answered? Can the Port “back out” of this agreement?
• The public is concerned about protecting and preserving Parkersville Landing and Marina
Park. Over 1000 signatures were obtained on petitions to do this, and the public is asking if
CCIA plans to present these to the Port. Do the commissioners plan to protect and preserve the
entire National Historical Site?
Public Comments Expressed at the Public Forum:
(This is quoted directly from the Public Forum transcript. ) George Coulter: “Yeah, my name is
George Coulter. I’m the general manager of Hambleton Lumber. Jim Hambleton sent me here
tonight to give you a message. Jim is the owner of the sawmill down there right now. Hambleton
brothers is the actual owner of the land. He is also President of that corporation. And, what he
told me to tell you was….what he wants to support is whatever the wishes of the people of
Washougal is…he supports that 100%. Thank you, and good evening.”
The following are comments quoted from the public:
• I would have preferred that if the community had come to a consensus that we wanted to
develop, the community had decided what they wanted it to look at, and then have some
possible developers come in and they bid some suggestions after we, as a community decided to
do with what’s our land, our property, our marina. It seemed like it all got backwards.
• The Port only owns, what, about half of the 65 acres. The other is privately held. We have no
voice in anyone that is privately held.
• One of the most important things that has been said here tonight is that possibly we get a
public vote, and I don’t know how that can come about, but I think that would be something to
really work toward because, speaking here tonight isn’t, well, I don’t know how it could stop the
project, but I think a public vote, I think it (the project )would be very unlikely to succeed.
• What I see is going on here is we’re talking about public land. This is land owned by the
citizens of Camas, Washougal. The development that goes on there should be done with the say
so of the citizens of Camas-Washougal. And it should benefit the citizens of Camas-Washougal
who are paying the taxes to have it done. This is your property, it’s your future, it’s your
children’s future.
• We really need to communicate that enhancing our recreational opportunities. Keep that in
focus, that is the Port’s mission statement. Their own mission statement.
• We don’t need any condominiums, that would only have a few people with a special interest
that would enjoy the view.
• I would like to know what can you do at this point, ask your body (the Port Commissioners),
what, can we possibly have this stopped and do not waste anymore time and money on…I don’t
believe a majority of the people want it.
• When this comes before council, as a zoning change, you can be assured that I will do to the
best of my abilities, make the decision that is in the best interest of the people of Washougal.
• And that’s to make an impact as a community, you need to show up at council and Port
meetings. If this crowd were to bust the doors on a consecutive basis, they would not know
what to do except heed….your…wishes.
• I don’t understand how the condos are in the mission.
• I don’t know why a totally public option wasn’t considered first, since this is public land. When
a developer gets involved and it turns into a private development and necessarily that is profit
driven. Maybe that’s what should happen, maybe it’s not, but it seems like some private, excuse
me, public options should have been considered first. That some of the access issues, parking
issues, view issues maybe could have been better considered. As far as development goes by
considering it completely public planning development process. And as far as I’ve been able to
tell, that wasn’t considered. We jumped right from start to end with the private development
concept. The second concern I have is more of a rumor like you mentioned, rumors happen. But
I’ve heard some rumors that perhaps eminent domain could be used to take away private
property and that concerns me. I could be potentially involved in that as well. And it doesn’t
seem fair to have private property taken away by a public entity to be given away to a different
private property.
• But whatever happens, it’s not so much as what is going to be built, but I think the developer
should show you how he’s gonna do it. Because this whole thing could be a piece-meal
operation.
• And the Port Commission in Camas-Washougal was originally established as a defensive
maneuver so that we would not have Port of Vancouver in our front door, and so that the
citizens of our community could have a say in what happened with the port.
• But good people sometimes make mistakes. Um, one of the mistakes that they (the
commissioners) made is not having the courtesy of coming here tonight and listening to what
people have to say.
• What I would expect the commissioners to do is to listen to public opinion, recognize they’ve
made a mistake, and correct it.
• It took them (the Port of Bellingham, city of Bellingham, citizens) three years, and they didn’t
have developers in the picture in the beginning. They had the Port of Bellingham, the City of
Bellingham, and the citizens working together as partners. That’s who started their process,
and they worked for three years before a developer even entered the picture.
• Mr. Powell (former Port Commissioner at Public Forum), when you were commissioner, was it
policy to introduce something at one meeting, and have about two weeks to discuss? He is
nodding yes. The oneness is on the commissioners, not the developers.
• What I want you to know how proud I am to see the number of people showing up out here,
and speaking and actually having a chance to control your own future and your own
government.
• I would suggest to people if they are wondering what can be done, is to continue the work
now, and I know I’m going to take part in it, and I would encourage everybody else to do so.
• I’d just like to see for future generations to come down and come down and bring their boat
and go out with their kids on a beach on the Columbia River and not take that away from us,
our community.
• And the big thing of it is, once you change that view, at that park, and the other 16 acres to
the east of Hambleton, it’s gone. You can never get it back. It’s gone, it’s memories. And you
have nothing to leave your children.
• But as I look around, I see many many wonderful gray haired citizens and I think it’s so neat
that Washougal has such a heritage here. But I think it would be really interesting to add up all
the years in this room that people have lived in Washougal, some for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years.
And that, that right there stands for so much. Culture, heritage, just experience.
• It was the first established community in the Washington territory and a significant beginning
of people, Parkersville, having a vision of what would happen and all of that is gone. All of the
park needs to be preserved (applause) because it’s a significant park. And I do want to say that
if we don’t honor the past, we’re going to sacrifice the future.
• So you have Washougal. This is the most historic spot in all of the territory for the Americans
coming through. Again, we are the most historical spot in all of the territory. I just wanted to let
you know that the work of preserving this National Historic Site will be accomplished and it will
be done because of your influence and your willing to stand. And I’ll just close with this
thought. If we forget our history, we will also as a people lose our culture.
• But to use tax payer’s money and use public property and denying the public their right to
waterways.
• There’s a select few that’s gonna make a few bucks off it, and their only there, their not for
our best interests. And 50 years down the road their going to be long gone some place else until
they can con somebody else out of their property.
• But the problematic part about that is that the Port only owns half of the proposed land at this
time. So, if they’re going to get that other land, and also get it ‘pad ready’ or whatever it is that
they’re being asked to do by the developer, that’s surely going to cost millions to the public. And
that’s going to be a significant impact on our tax rates.
• And in my experience in putting deals together, I always show the other guy how to make
money. If I couldn’t show you how to make money, you wouldn’t do business with me. It wouldn’t
be a good deal.
• What I keep hearing is that 50% of the profit is going to go to the port. And that sounds great.
The Port’s going to get more money, more money coming into the government of Camas-
Washougal. But that money does not go into better schools, police, fire, etc. What you’re going
to end up with is a better port. That money, the profits are going to go to funding the port
district. It’s not going to go to benefit the average people in Camas-Washougal.
• Trailer boaters are far less likely to use and pay for a marina slip or dry stack storage because
they like to be able to take their own boats home and clean and maintain them at home as a
hobby like a hotrod or any other man’s hobby or family’s hobby.
• Trailer boaters also like the ability to load and unload their gear at home and not have to carry
it all down to their boat. They like the ability to go to other locations such as a lake or any other
place that they might want to go on vacation. So, and one other thing, of course trailer parking
is much more affordable. Their plans with marina slips and things, those prices are gonna be
comparable to the prices on the Willamette. So, three or four or five times higher than you are
currently paying.
• I favor the access to the many.
• This plan seems gentrified in the sense, well like the condos, or a big expensive hotel. I like
the natural access and when I lived in Oregon we had a governor who did a lot to keep the coast
accessible to the people, I mean, he, and the rules, and the laws said you couldn’t build right on
the water. That they couldn’t be privately owned, that they had to be left for the public.
• What is so unique about the area of the Columbia River which is owned by the Port area,
owned by the Port of Camas-Washougal, which is actually the public, is the fact that access to
the river is so easy from the highway. It is unencumbered by railroad tracks.
• The public is extremely fortunate that the land at this point in time is owned by the public, and
is therefore can be considered as ‘commons’, which in Anglo Saxon property law is “an area of
land for use by the public”. This land was purchased by the Port with public money. In the
Shorelines Management Act of ’71, it was stated that “a development master program for
shorelines of statewide significance, preference shall be given to uses in the following order of
preference which 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest. 2.
Preserve the natural character of the shoreline, result in long-term over short-term benefit.
Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Increase public access to publicly owned
areas of the shorelines. Increase recreational opportunities for the public at shoreline. And
provide for any other element in this frame of law. And the implementation of this policy, the
public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and esthetic qualities of the natural shorelines of the
state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with the overall best interest
of the state and people generally”. Again it should be emphasized that this land is presently
publicly owned.
• Obviously, it’s much more expensive to acquire land after it’s built upon, and developed. It
would seem to me that the greatest good that can be achieved is to have this land presently
owned by the Port, by providing water related activities which is what I believe was the intent of
the Shorelines Management Act. And that does not mean developing the land, Port, residential
development which reduces availability of this precious resource to the general public.
• I’d just like to see for future generations to come down and come down and bring their boat
and go out with their kids on a beach on the Columbia River and not take that away from us,
our community.
• And the big thing of it is, once you change that view, at that park, and the other 16 acres to
the east of Hambleton, it’s gone. You can never get it back. It’s gone, it’s memories. And you
have nothing to leave your children.
• But as I look around, I see many many wonderful gray haired citizens and I think it’s so neat
that Washougal has such a heritage here. But I think it would be really interesting to add up all
the years in this room that people have lived in Washougal, some for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years.
And that, that right there stands for so much. Culture, heritage, just experience.
Thank you to the Camas-Washougal Port Commissioners for taking the time to hear this
presentation of public questions and comments regarding the proposed waterfront development
project. The public is requesting answers to these questions, which are directed to the Port
Commissioners. During the second regular meeting from today, which is in August, Concerned
Citizens In Action will obtain from the Commissioners the answers to these public questions, as
well as their responses to the pubic comments.
Developer Backgrounds
Posted on: May 20 2007 @ 05:45 PM
By: LarryMIller
Content:
I am amazed that the background of how Rick Bowler does business has been grossly
overlooked.
In the past year, One Pacific and Rick Bowler have been sued 4 times. One lawsuit has been
filed by the Residents of Westridge Place, one of the developments mentioned in Sunday's
Columbian article.
Mr. Bowler has failed to complete that development and provide the residents their promised
security systems, landscaped walking trails, fountain areas. Please drop by and take a look at
the common areas and what was completed to what level of quality. Again, these were Bowler
"concepts" he used to entice people to buy his home in that development.
Read the minutes of Board meetings on westridgeplacehoa.com, email or call the officers of that
Board. Mr. Bowler has been difficult to deal with and has created alot of problems for the
residents there, continually violating the CC&R's.
Mark Benson is also a member of that Board as an appointtee of Mr. Bowler acts specifically at
Bowlers Direction to the detriment of the homeowners.
Mr. Bowler is someone that the public should not do business with. Please check the Clark
County Superior Court records for Rick Bowler and One Pacific Corporation, Kole Properties
and then copies of the lawsuits.
This would add additional light the public should know about Mr. Bowler and Mr. Benson.
Mr. Bowlers other projects, Two Creeks at Camas Meadows, East Grove LLC at Westridge, the
192nd Avenue station, Hotel on 192nd, and the Driving Range on First street have all turned
into financial disasters for Mr. Bowler.
Also, check out the occupancy turnover of the Troutdale shopping district. I think you will find a
project like Riverwalk is ill advised for the public.
Please investigate this information and and decide for yourself. THe public should cancell this
project with haste. The good ole boy agreements that have already been struck need to be
corrected.
Larry Miller
________________________________________
Subject: Questions & Concerns
Posted on: May 18 2007 @ 02:26 PM
By: dmtkconnolly
Content:
I will be the first to admit that I haven't really followed the Port discussions very closely until I
heard that part of the plan is to get rid of the trailer parking area. I don't understand where
people are supposed to put their trailers/trucks when they launch their boat?
The people that use that launch are not people who can/want to pay for expensive moorage. We
like having our boats at home where they are secure & not covered in river gunk.
I am all for developing our towns to bring in more jobs and to better our economy. But there
needs to be a limit. We need to keep the "small town" feel that brings people here and makes us
want to stay.
________________________________________
Election is November 3rd. Ballots have been mailed. If you don't get a
ballot, please contact the elections office in Vancouver.
Go to the following links for complete information:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/calendar.aspx?m=6&y=2009
http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/2009/CandidateFilingList2009.pdf
Camas-Washougal Port District
District No. 1 Mark Lampton
Gary Perman
District No. 3 Bill Macrae-Smith
Alan Hargrave
City of Washougal
Mayor Sean Guard
Stacee S. Sellers
Council Position No. 1 John Russell
Council Position No. 3 Paul Greenlee
Council Position No. 4 Garry H. Alexander, Sr.
Michael Delavar
Council Position No. 6 Larry Wagoner
Dave Shoemaker
Council-at-large Molly Coston
Be sure to VOTE!
_____________________________________
Port of Camas Washougal Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: David Ripp
Executive Director
(360) 835-2196x101
david@portcw.com
Washougal, Wash. — May 29, 2009 — The Port of Camas-Washougal today
announced the conclusion of
the liability phase of the arbitration process between the Port and
RiverWalk on the Columbia, LLC. The
arbitration panel has notified both parties of a decision that finds on
behalf of the Port of Camas-
Washougal.
“We’re very pleased with the outcome and felt from the beginning that
our position was solid, defensible
and we have been responsible to the mission of the Port and to the
citizens,” said Port of Camas-
Washougal Executive Director David Ripp. “We put forth a vigorous
defense against the claim brought by
RiverWalk. It is unfortunate we had to defend this lawsuit in the first
place, yet we have the responsibility to protect the taxpayers. It’s now
behind us and we’re moving forward."
This is good news for the Port, and the next issue at hand is the
recouping of the over $800,000 in attorney fees (This number is now at
over $950,000 and climbing as of October 2009) that were spent by the
Port to fight this case.
Martha Martin, Ph.D.
President
Concerned Citizens In Action
________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens In Action win another award: The First Freedom
Award from Society for Professional Journalists, Oregon and SW
Washington Chapter
CCIA was honored with an award from SPJ on Saturday, May 30th at the banquet
room at the Oregon Zoo. The award, called The First Freedom Award, is given to
individuals or groups whose actions promote the protection of the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States (Free Speech). This honor also recognized
CCIA for their continued role in promoting Open Government. President Martha
Martin and Board Member Susan Stauffer accepted the award.
_____________________________________________________
Nominees' brief biographies for members receiving ballots.
The Nominees for this year are: (vote for three on your ballot which was mailed to
members only)
Bernice Pluchos: "I am an active member of the Camas-Washougal Historical Society
and the Parker's Landing Park Advisory Committee. I am firmly committed to keeping
Sections A, B, and C. of the Parkersville National Historical Site for the everyone as a
public park." Bernice is a founding member of CCIA.
Mariann Guetter: Mariannn has served as a founding member and Secretary of CCIA
for almost 3 years. She is an advocate of Open Government, and supports citzen
rights to have their voice heard. She is an active member of the Parker's Landing
Park Advisory Committee.
Larry Keister: Larry has been an active member of CCIA for over a year. He attends
government meetings and provides observation reports that are published on the
CCIA website. He is an active supporter of citizens regarding their right to know what
government is doing and is always willing to ask pointed questions that get results.
John Wagoner: John is the current Vice President of CCIA. He is our most vocal
proponent of government acting in the best interest of its citizens. He is always
willing to ask the critical questions, even if government is unwilling to give him the
answers.
_______________________________________________
”In our view March 16 Sunshine Week
Special attention is devoted to the public’s right to know
Monday, March 16 | 1:00 a.m. The Columbian
It's easy for special-interest groups and complicit politicians to complain about public
records' supposedly being too available to the public. It's so easy, in fact, that Washington's
Public Disclosure Act now carries approximately 300 different exemptions. In 1972, when the
law was passed, it contained only 10.
But too often masked in the debate over exemptions is the foundation of these laws. That's
the purpose of Sunshine Week, an annual event led by the American Society of Newspaper
Editors. This year, Sunshine Week is March 15-21. See the Columbian Archives for the rest
of the story.City of Washougal announces Planning Commission Vacancy
For more information, go to http://washougal.biz/cow/index.htm and click on "Planning
Commission Vacancy" found on the home page.
________________________________________________
Want to view the WCOG public forum held on Feb. 25th?
Go to www.washingtoncog.org and click on EVENTS, then click on the Video download for that date. You can also
view other forums, and learn more about Open Government Laws.
Washington's Public Records and Open Meetings Laws Forum
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Time: 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM
Location:
Camas Public Library
625 NE 4th Ave
Camas, WA 98607
Moderator: David Seago, retired editorial page editor of the Tacoma News Tribune
The Washington Coalition for Open Government will present a special program focusing on Washington’s Public
Records and Open Meetings laws. A panel of expert presenters will fuel the discussion on securing and
preserving the public’s legal right to access the records and proceedings of the government agencies created to
serve the people of the state.
The panelists include:
State Auditor Brian Sonntag
Assistant State Attorney General Tim Ford
State Archivist Jerry Handfield
Dr. Martha Martin of Concerned Citizens in Action
Representative Bruce Chandler of the 15th Legislative District
The forum is free and open to all, and questions and comments from the audience are welcome.
Washington Coalition for Open Government
6351 Seaview Avenue NW
Seattle, Washington 98107-2664
www.washingtoncog.org
phone: (206) 782-0393
fax: (206) 623-4474
WCOG is building a network of citizens who support open government laws and practices. Please send to
info@washingtoncog.org your name, address, phone, and e-mail address. We will notify you, as they arrive, of
threats to open government and opportunities to strengthen it.
________________________________
Update on Feb. 18th meeting: Approximately 30 people attended and
gave lots of input, with several new ideas. The consensus of the public
was a resounding "Yes" to permanently protecting the Park. The
Commissioners stated they would consider all input and have another
meeting in about three weeks.
Port of Camas-Washougal Special Meeting for Public Comment on
Covenants for protecting the Historical and Marina Park area.
The Port is holding a special meeting for the public to come and make comment regarding
the Port Attorney's current restrictive covenant document that is supposed to protect the
Park area from future development and keep it in its current use. Originally, many citizens
wrote a letter to the Port requesting a zone change to keep it in its current use as a public
space. The Port's attorney suggested that covenants that followed the deed for this area
would be more protection. Read the latest version of these covenants and note that the
language does not protect "in perpetuity", but would allow for a change upon sale of this
Historic and beautiful area.
Click Here for a copy of the latest covenant draft.
Please attend this meeting and give the commissioners your input about this area. This is your
Park!
CCIA RECEIVES KEY AWARD FOR PURSUIT OF OPEN GOVERNMENT
Saturday, August 09 2008 @ 06:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action has been nominated for the Washington Coalition for Open
Government's Key Award. According to WACOG, The Key Award was created to annually honor
individuals and organizations that have worked tirelessly to force government entities in
Washington to be open and accountable to the public.
Here is the press release that was sent to CCIA from the Washington Coalition for Open
Government. Included are all the honorees that will receive awards at the September 19th
awards breakfast in Seattle, Washington.
NEWS RELEASE
FOR RELEASE AUGUST 18, 2008
TOPIC: OPEN GOVERNMENT HONOREES NAMED
CONTACT: ELLY SNOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON COALITION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT
INFO@WASHINGTONCOG.ORG 206.782.0393
Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, announced today that
two organizations, three public officials and three individual citizens will be recognized for their
work on behalf of the cause of transparent and accountable government with the coalition's
prestigious Key Awards.
"An informed public is vital to our democratic system, and those we have chosen to honor have
each given time, effort, and resources to ensure the people's right to know what their
government is doing", stated Nixon.
The honorees include: Concerned Citizens in Action of Washougal; David Koenig of Federal
Way; Olympia Port Commissioner Paul Telford; Greg Hansen, Grant County Public Utilities
District Commissioner; State Representative Bruce Chandler, R-Granger; Charlie Burrow of
Kitsap Citizens for Responsible Planning; James Neff, investigative reporter for the Seattle
Times; and Allied Law Group of Seattle.
Nominations for the honors cited the following accomplishments as reasons for the awards:
"Rep. Bruce Chandler (R-Granger) is the Ranking Minority Member of the House State
Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. He showed strong support for government
transparency when he stood up for keeping HB 3292, the bill to require taping of executive
sessions, alive when it looked as if this piece of legislation was doomed forever."
"Concerned Citizens In Action, under the leadership of Dr. Martha Martin and Roger Daniels,
has fought for the cause of open government for several years. Their efforts on behalf of the
public's right to know through the use of public records requests in the Port of
Camas/Washougal RiverWalk project uncovered questionable activity on the part of the Port.
The group continues to act as watchdogs for transparency in the affairs of local government."
"Since the mid-1990's, David Koenig has pursued the cause of government transparency by
bringing cases based on denials of public records requests. He has won awards against the
cities of Lakewood, Buckley, Tukwila and Des Moines. His pursuit of openness is based on his
desire to see that local jurisdictions clean up their acts."
"Paul Telford ran for Port Commissioner on a platform calling for openness and accountability .
He had previously won two landmark decisions holding officials accountable to the public.
During his tenure, he has attempted to expand public access to the Port's affairs by urging the
commission to televise its meetings."
"Greg Hansen had the courage to call his fellow commissioners to account for violating the
Open Meetings Act."
"Michele Earl-Hubbard and Greg Overstreet, the principals of Allied Law Group, have defended
the public's right to know what its government is doing both as individuals and as a law firm.
They each have an impressive record of taking cases of people whose access to government
information has been denied, often working tirelessly for little or no remuneration. In addition,
Allied Law Group has contributed thousands of dollars worth of pro bono work to WCOG, which
has enabled the coalition to fulfill its mission of upholding the principles of open government."
"James Neff has pursued a career-long fight for public access to government information. As a
reporter, editor, professor, author and newspaper industry leader, Neff has always been in
forefront of the battle to keep government open, not because it was his job but because he has
a passion for it and believes in the principles. As investigations editor at The Times, Neff has led
an unprecedented period in which The Seattle Times worked to open government records,
resulting in dozens of groundbreaking stories. Entire teams of Times journalists have produced
these stories, but Neff has provided the hands-on leadership throughout."
"Charlie Burrow's leadership of Kitsap Citizens for Responsible Planning resulted in improved
awareness of and access to open government in Kitsap County. His action helped clarify and
focus the minds of many Kitsap County citizens, officials and staff of the functions and value of
open government concepts. Charlie's actions exposed the undisclosed meetings and
arrangements of a very large corporation with local officials."
Each Key Award winner will receive a framed certificate and a lapel pin at the coalition's annual
James Madison/James Andersen Awards breakfast on Friday, September 19 from 7:00 to 9:00
AM at the Washington Athletic Club in Seattle.
The event will honor Jolene Unsoeld, former member of the state House of Representatives and
U.S. Congress with its 2008 James Madison Award, and retired publisher Kris Passey with its
second annual James Andersen Award. Enrique Cerna, program director of KCTS-9 will act as
master of ceremonies, and David Horsey, political cartoonist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
will present the keynote address.
The Washington Coalition for Open Government is a non-partisan, non-profit organization
founded in 2003 by a group of individuals and organizations dedicated to strengthening and
preserving Washington's open meetings and public records laws and regulations. For more
information about WCOG and its activities, go to www.washingtoncog.org
Public Records, Open Meetings: Your Right of Access
Friday, August 08 2008 @ 06:47 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
It is important to know about Public Records and Open Meetings in regards to your rights as a
citizen to have access to information. The following Questions and Answers are from The
Washington Coalition for Open Government, and provide valuable information:
Q. Why are Washington's Public Disclosure and Open Meetings acts necessary?
A. Government business is the business of the people. These acts ensure that citizens have the
right to see public documents and go to public meetings.
Q. If statutory exemptions exist, must records custodians or chairmen of public councils,
commissions, committees and boards withhold a document or close a meeting to the public?
A. No. Exemptions are not mandatory. They are to be narrowly construed to favor citizen access.
There is no penalty for releasing public documents or opening public meetings that an
exemption could have barred. There are, however, statutes outside the Public Disclosure Act
that expressly prohibit disclosure of certain records. These usually refer to a very specific type
of record. Court records, for example, are controlled by rules of the court and the judges seated
on the courts.
Q. May a local government enact an ordinance that includes requirements more or less
restrictive than those in state laws provide?
A. Local ordinances that conflict with state public disclosure and open meetings laws are void.
Q. What is a "public record"? What constitutes a "meeting" of a public agency?
A. A record is defined in broad terms of documents and information in government's possession.
The concept of a public record covers "all records, document, tape, or other information stored
or preserved in any medium" -- including on a computer -- "of or belonging to" a government
agency. A government agency is considered to be "meeting" when a majority of its members are
talking about or taking action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's
policy-making duties. That, too, is a broad definition, consistent with the law's emphasis on
openness. Many city councils, for example, have committees whose membership constitutes
fewer that a majority of the council. These meetings are open public meetings, however, even
though the "decisions" or "recommendations" from the committee to the full council are not
final. In Washington, the deliberative process of government, at all levels, is public.
Q. Does a person have a right to speak at a meeting of a government agency?
A. No. School boards, city councils, etc., routinely invite comments and discussion from the
general public, but they can say "No" to requests to talk and can place the time limits on
comments.
Q. Can a person get public information by phone or by fax?
A. Law does not provide for such access, but governmental agencies often provide it to be
helpful.
Q. When can a person see the minutes of a public meeting?
A. As soon as the minutes are prepared. A public agency cannot deny access to the minutes
because they have not been received or approved by agency members.
Q. What does it cost to get a copy of a public record?
A. A public agency may charge "a reasonable fee" for providing a copy of a record. Costs vary.
Sometimes there is no charge at all. Two rules of thumb: (1) If the charge is high enough to
discourage you from getting the record, the charge probably is not "reasonable." (2) State law
provides charges of 15 cents a page for copies.
Q. How can a person sue a public agency for violation of these laws?
A. Some points to bear in mind:
1. The goal should be to assure access, not to file and win a lawsuit. Talk with the people
involved about the presumption of openness in Washington laws. Try to work things out short
of litigation.
2. Talk with the attorney for the public agency to see if counsel thinks the law has been
followed.
3. Document your efforts to get a record or attend a meeting where access is denied.
4. Seek the advice of an attorney not associated with the public agency involved. Often an
attorney can briefly advise you at little or no charge.
5. If you file suit and are successful, the laws provide that you may recover reasonable
attorney's fees and in some cases monetary penalties.
Arbitration update information
Friday, July 25 2008 @ 04:08 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The latest information given to the public regarding the arbitration between the Port of Camas-
Washougal, and RiverWalk LLC comes from the Port attorney. He informed the public at the last
Port Commission meeting that the date for the arbitration process to begin will be around
December 1st of 2008. There will be three abitrators on the panel. The Port has requested the
location to be Vancouver, WA, and has also requested that some members of the public be
allowed to attend. Riverwalk, on the other hand, is requesting that the arbitration take place in
Seattle, and wants NO public to be in attendance.
It makes sense to have the location be in Vancouver, since the witnesses and the public are in
this area. Travel back and forth to Seattle would present a hardship, with time, cost, and stress.
This process concerns the citizens of the Port of Camas-Washougal. They have a lot at stake in
the outcome of this process. Having members of the public in attendance just makes sense. We
support the location being in Vancouver, and having members of the public from the Port
District in attendance!
Important Updates at the Port of Camas-Washougal
Monday, June 09 2008 @ 06:22 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Views: 74
Rezoning of the Park to "Park".
The latest information from our Port regarding the possible rezoning of the Park area west of
the Port Office is that the Port is having all property surveyed, and will be looking into
combining some of the smaller tax lots into larger ones. The Port continues to take feedback
about the rezone process to "Park" under the zoning title of "Institutional/Public". This would
also include the current areas that are currently parking. This zoning would serve the purpose
of keeping the current utilization the way it is; just as the public sees it, with Park space (have
you visited lately? We have probably the most enviable spot for a Park on the Columbia with a
view that will lower the blood pressure of even the most stressed out of people), a National
Historic Site (read the bricks that are there in the Plaza, and take note of the history of this
site), and a Marina that is very busy along with our bursting-at-the-seams parking.
Arbitration Update
Regarding the arbitration process between our Port and Riverwalk on the Columbia, LLC, the
latest information per our Port attorney is that there will be a panel of THREE arbitrators that
will decide this case. Our attorney has stated "yes" to the question "Will there be a request for
some members of the public to be at the arbitration". Whether that will happen still remains to
be seen, but the request is legitimate; the public is part of this, since our tax dollars are paying
for the legal fees. Remember, Riverwalk is asking for $19.5 million dollars from you, the
taxpayers.
Public Meeting: Request by C/W Port to Rezone Land Near Grove Field Airport
Tuesday, April 29 2008 @ 05:52 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Public is invited to a meeting at the Port of Camas-Washougal meeting room, Thursday,
May 1st, starting at 5:30PM. Residents of the Port District can obtain more information and
comment on a request to rezone 19.6 acres near the Grove Field Airport from Residential-5 to
Airport. The Residential-5 zoning allows one home for every five acres.
The Port, already having committed to a land lease with Immelman Hanger Developments, LLC
of Gresham, Oregon to construct 17 hangars, will need this zone change in order to
accommodate Immelman's lease. According to Scot Walstra, Port Planning and Development
Director, the lease is predicated on the zone change.
The rezone request is scheduled to go before the Clark County planning commission on June
12th.
Local Citizens Echo Request of 1100 petitioners: "Rezone Parker's Landing National Historic Site
to Park"
Monday, April 14 2008 @ 05:25 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
At the last regular Port of Camas-Washougal commission meeting, a letter was discussed by
David Ripp and the Port Commissioners. This letter was composed by several local citizen
groups and individual citizens who met in two previous meetings to discuss the rezone process
to "Park" for Parker's Landing National Historic Site and the surrounding park area. During the
discussion, commissioners stated that they would like to research the documents relating to the
Park and its boundaries, and would like to have a public process that included public input and
comments at scheduled meetings just for this purpose. Richard Hamby, who has put in hours of
research to find the documents and history relating to this issue, will assist the Port by sharing
his information.
This is the text of the letter presented to the Port Commissioners:
Alan Hargrave
President
Port of Camas-Washougal Board of Commissioners
Port of Camas-Washougal
24 South A Street
Washougal, Washington
98671
Dear Mr. Hargrave:
It is respectfully requested that the Commissioners of the Port of Camas-Washougal petition the
City of Washougal to re-zone the Port owned Parkersville National Historic Site from its current
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL zone designation to INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC (Washougal’s zone
designation for parks).
The area commonly known as the Parkersville National Historic Site is described as follows; All
of tax lots #73139102, #73139100, #73139106, #73139108, #73139104, #73139110, the
unidentified space between #73139104 and #73139110, all of #73134162, the unidentified space
between #73134162 and the previously described land, all adjacent Port owned land West of the
above described land, and all adjacent Port owned land South of the above described land to
the low water line.
This request is brought to the Port Commissioners by respected members of the community
representing several groups: Former Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners, Parker’s
Landing Park Advisory Committee, the Historical Society of Camas-Washougal, Concerned
Citizens In Action, and several members of the general public. We are echoing the voices of
those thousands of citizens who previously signed petitions.
Your consideration of this request will be very much appreciated. It will be a proud day for our
community when we can finally say that our Park and Historical site, the first American
settlement in Washington State, is protected from commercial development and recognized as a
significant part of our nation, state, county, and community’s heritage.
CCIA Open Public Meeting March 26th at 7PM at Camas Police Station
Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 11:31 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Views: 51
Concerned Citizens In Action is holding an Open Public Meeting on Wednesday, March 26th at
7PM. The location is the Camas Police Station Community Room, 2100 NE 3rd Ave., Camas, WA.
This is our third Open Public Meeting since CCIA was formed just a little over a year ago.
The meeting is open to members, guests, and the public. CCIA will review the past few months
projects, such as public process at the Port, working with several public groups on requesting
rezoning of Parkersville National Historic Site to Park, the latest SR-14 safety and expansion
plans, and other government processes. We will open up the floor to the public for questions
and discussion about topics of interest to citizens. Refreshments will be served, so come and
join our meeting. We look forward to seeing you there!
President Martin
The Price of the Port's "mistakes" is $962.46 Per Person and Rising...
Wednesday, March 19 2008 @ 12:13 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
According to the County Elections Department, the population of the Port of Camas-Washougal
District is 21,023 people. That includes women, men, and children.
The waterfront development project, which so far has only provided losses for the Port tax
payers, will continue to provide further losses for the Port District. Those costs can be broken
down like this:
$19,500,000 RiverWalk arbitration claim
+$20,808 RiverWalk breach of contract claim
+$13,119 costs paid to date so far by Port to Stoel Rives attorneys (more to come)
+ $700,000 Cost incurred by Port during two-year Option Agreement period
_Total costs = $20,233,927 and rising____
That breaks down to about $962 for every woman, man, and child in the Port District. This will
soon climb to over $1000 per person as costs continue.
RiverWalk seeks claim of $19.5 million from Port of Camas-Washougal
Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 07:43 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
This article was on the front page of the March 18, 2008 Post Record.
___________________________________________________________
RiverWalk arbitration moves forward
Developer seeks possible claim of $19.5 million
By Dawn Feldhaus
Post-Record Staff
March 18, 2008
The Port of Camas Washougal is using the services of outside counsel to defend its position in
an arbitration process involving RiverWalk on the Columbia, LLC, as the development company
seeks a potential financial resolution to the dispute.
Jeff Courser, an attorney with Stoel Rives LLP, in Vancouver, is being paid to advise the port
regarding the arbitration.
"His specialty is real estate litigation," said Port Executive Director David Ripp.
The vouchers presented to the port commission Monday included a payment of $13,119 to Stoel
Rives.
RiverWalk is being represented by Lynn Stafford, an attorney with Markowitz Herbold Glade &
Mehlhaf PC, in Portland, Ore. A statement of claim signed by Stafford indicates that RiverWalk
is seeking a judgment that finds the port failed to negotiate in good faith the documents
necessary to complete the transaction and proceed with the development.
The statement also seeks an order that defines which documents are necessary to complete the
option agreement. An alternative claim for damages mentions that RiverWalk would seek an
award of no less than $19.5 million. The statement indicates that amount represents losses
RiverWalk will incur if the option• agreement is not acted upon.
A claim is also made for breach of contract damages in the amount of $20,808, along with
attorney fees.
"The port feels the claims are without merit," said port attorney Shawn MacPherson. ''We intend
to aggressively defend our position in this case."
RiverWalk on the Columbia initiated the arbitration process. A previous option agreement for a
$350 million waterfront development, which could have extended from the Parkersville historic
site upriver to the vacant property east of Hambleton Lumber, expired Nov. 2, 2007. Three days
later, RiverWalk on the Columbia, LLC, issued a statement that it had exercised its option to
enter into a long-term ground lease with the port.
According to the port, the agreement with RiverWalk expired with several "unfulfilled
contingencies," including the lack of a master development agreement between the city of
Washougal, port and RiverWalk, an agreed fully negotiated long-term ground lease for the
proposed overall project, land acquisitions necessary for the proposed project, and
establishment of a community renewal area - in compliance with the city of Washougal's land
ordinances.
The port will have 14 days to respond to the arbitration filing, after it receives the formal notice
from Judicial Arbitration Mediation Services.
Secrecy At the Port of Camas-Washougal: Columbian Editorial
Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 11:29 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Columbian Editorial page for March 12, 2008 sums up the public sentiment regarding the
current findings of the Washington State Auditor.
____________________________________________
In our view: Secrecy at Camas-Washougal port
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
On the heels of a scalding state audit of the Port of Camas-Washougal, there can be no
mistaking the bottom line: Elected officials and top staff people at ports, fire districts, city halls
and other governments should think long and hard about keeping secrets from the taxpayers,
voters and residents. Instead, engage them.
And there’s this implicit message from state Auditor Brian Sonntag to citizens: When secrecy is
a problem, fight back.
The audit is rich with examples of how figuratively bankrupt the Port of Camas-Washougal had
become in maintaining its social contract with its constituents. The same was true of the Port of
Vancouver last year when it approved a tax increase with virtually no public notice or input. In
that case, angry voters launched a petition drive to get the issue on the ballot, where they killed
it. Then, voters ousted veteran Commissioner Arch Miller in November.
At issue in Camas-Washougal was the handling of the proposed no-bid RiverWalk waterfront
development on public land. (The audit and port’s responses are at www.portcw.com. Under
“News Bulletin” click on “financial page” and then look under “2008 financial documents and
click on the accountability audit report.)
Offices, shops, condominiums and open public spaces were envisioned for RiverWalk. There
are good things to be said for that notion, and the port should continue looking to make its
waterfront accessible to the public as well as nurture industry — but with plenty of up-front
input, as it now is doing at its east-end site.
But the audit makes clear that in 2005-2006 Commissioners Alan Hargrave, Rich Gunderson
and Jim Carroll figured RiverWalk would be best left to themselves, port Executive Director
Sheldon Tyler, developers Rick Bowler and Mark Benson — later to be joined by John McKibbin
— and the lawyers. The public could be brought up to speed later, once everything was in
motion. Hang the requirement for an updated waterfront comprehensive plan and other niceties.
“The Port expedited the agreement with the developer without considering all state laws and
the need to include the public,” the audit says. “… The public was excluded from all discussion
about the proposed development until after the agreement with the developer was signed.”
Even if the letter of the open-meetings law was not violated, the spirit sure was, as critics Roger
Daniels and Martha Martin of Concerned Citizens in Action have said since they learned about
the secretive meetings in the fall of 2005 when RiverWalk took shape.
A better model, Martin said Tuesday, is the waterfront development being planned in
Bellingham. “They involved the public for three years” before beginning to pick a developer,
she said.
One secret within the larger secret, The Columbian has learned, was a series of hush-hush
talks between the port and Georgia-Pacific about putting a boat ramp on GP’s property on Lady
Island and closing the existing ramp.
But the shroud of secrecy and distrust of public involvement was not the auditor’s only
concern. There’s plenty in the audit about poor fiscal control of RiverWalk by the port, which
genuflected as the developers bought property and hired contractors to do site evaluations. The
audit details all kinds of problems with vouchers, payments and lack of port buy-in at the front
end of expenditures. Commissioners had agreed to spend as much as $200,000 initially and,
according to the audit, are now into it for nearly $700,000.
In fairness, about $391,000 of that was for land purchases that the port says can be used for
future expansion even though, as newly elected Commissioner Bill Ward said Tuesday,
RiverWalk “is off the table.”
State Auditor Report Finds Problems with Port's Handling of RiverWalk Process
Monday, March 10 2008 @ 04:37 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Port of Camas-Washougal has posted the State Auditor's Report on their website. Two
items of concern were highlighted in the report: (1.) The Port’s controls over an agreement with
a developer (RiverWalk LLC) were inadequate and (2.) The Port did not ensure transparency of
the Riverwalk development to the public.
The Auditor's report indicates that the Port spent: Land Purchases $390,702, Site Studies and
Assessments $136,694, Public Relations $75,928, Consulting Fees $73,667, and Marketing
$21,134, for a total expense toward the RiverWalk Project of $698,125. The orignial amount in
the agreement that the Port was to spend was up to $200,000. The Port appears to have spent
$498,125 over that amount - almost 1/2 million dollars over the agreed amount. That is public
dollars that were spent!
The Auditor's Report explains its findings regarding item No. 1: (quoted from the report)
"Description of Condition
The Port made several payments without adequate documentation. We also found several
instances in which the Port and the developer violated the agreement. Specifically:
• Eighty payments totaling $245,349 were made entirely by the Port, others entirely by the
developer.
• Sixteen invoices totaling $45,957 were paid initially by the developer and later
reimbursed by the Port.
• Seven payments totaling $14,946 were missing original invoices.
• Documentation was insufficient to show expenses were project-related.
• Payment on invoices often took longer than 20 days.
• Often, we found no documentation to show the Port had reviewed the scope of work prior
to it beginning.
The Port also allowed the developer to negotiate a $145,675 land purchase on its behalf without
monitoring or control over the transaction. The Port took action to regain control after the
purchase price had been agreed to and the developer had made a down payment. We found no
evidence the Port had authorized these negotiations or made an agreement with the developer
as
to the source of funds to be used to purchase the property.
Cause of Condition
Some option agreement terms safeguarded the Port and provided a way for it to monitor the
developer’s activities. By not requiring the developer to adhere to the terms of the agreement,
the Port lost the ability to control project expenses and activities. However, the agreement also
did not limit expenses to the cost categories explicitly identified in the agreement. We estimate
$561,431 of the total Riverwalk costs were for purposes other than specified in the agreement.
These expenses included such items as land purchases, public relations, consulting fees and
marketing. The Port has stated many of these costs were at their discretion.
The Port’s ability to monitor expenses was further hampered when the developer did not provide
documentation to support expenditures. Invoices provided by the developer often were received
well beyond 20 days, contrary to agreement terms. Despite repeated requests, the Port still does
not possess records such as original invoices and contracts that it has requested from the
developer. We met with the developer to review invoices and contracts but were not allowed to
make copies of them. The developer cited that it did not want all expenses to be a matter of
public record as reasoning for not providing full disclosure of documents.
Effect of Condition
The Port and developer violated some terms of the agreement. Also, the Port paid more than the
limit specified in the agreement. The lack of documentation limits the Port’s ability to ensure all
expenditures were related to the project. The Port also cannot be sure the developer met its
legal
obligation to share expenses.
Recommendation
We recommend the Port:
• Follow established policies and procedures for all payments.
• Monitor activities associated with the proposed developments.
• Ensure compliance with contract terms and conditions.
• Acquire the public records held by the developer."
The Port's response is lengthy, and can be viewed in its entirety a their website or you may see
the document by clicking on "MyDownloads" above.
The Auditor's response to the Port's response was:
"Auditor’s Remarks
We appreciate the Port’s attempt to provide a further explanation into the costs we cite in this
finding. However, we reaffirm our position that all the costs cited in this finding were related
to the proposed Riverwalk development. We will review the Port’s corrective action to address
the internal control weaknesses identified in our next audit."
Click on "read more" to view the Auditor's findings on item No. 2: "The Port did not ensure
transparency of the Riverwalk development to the public."
"The Port did not ensure transparency of the Riverwalk development to the public. (quoted
from the report)
Description of Condition
The Port Commission had a special meeting on October 28, 2005, to unveil its intentions to
develop its waterfront. In this same meeting, a presentation was heard from a developer and the
Commission approved the signing of an option agreement with the developer. We have been
contacted by numerous citizens questioning whether the Port was required to have a regular
open session prior to signing the option agreement.
The proposed development was not discussed in regular, open public Commission meeting prior
to the agreement being approved by the Board. We also found the developer met with the
Commission several times in executive sessions dating back to May 2005. State law does allow
the Port to discuss in executive session the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by
lease or purchase and to consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale
or lease. However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open
to the public.
The original agenda advertised in the newspaper for the regular board meeting on October 24,
2005, listed the proposed development as a discussion topic. However, the Commission
subsequently removed this item from the agenda and instead met with the developer in
executive
session. The agreement was then signed at the October 28 special meeting, which was
advertised 24 hours in advance.
We also found the Port’s Comprehensive Scheme did not disclose the Port was considering the
lease of marina property for mixed used development, nor did the Port adopt a separate strategic
plan related to this project. State law requires ports to adopt a comprehensive scheme of harbor
improvements in a public hearing that is advertised to the public in the two weeks preceding
adoption.
The Port adopted a Comprehensive Plan of Harbor Improvements and Industrial Development in
1999 and amended it on July 19, 2004. Neither the plan nor the amendment mentions the mixed
use waterfront development. In addition, no public advertisement requesting a waterfront
development study or proposal was published.
State law requires port districts to prepare and adopt a comprehensive scheme before spending
public funds on improvements to properties, except expenditures necessary and incidental to
developing the scheme itself. A complete and accurate comprehensive plan is necessary to keep
the public informed of Port activities.
Cause of Condition
The Port expedited the agreement with the developer without considering all state laws and the
need to include the public. The Port believes the option agreement was intended to provide the
framework for an overall development scheme, but did not bind the Port to the sale or lease of
specific Port properties absent additional agreements to be agreed upon, publicly aired, and
executed by the Port. The Port has stated the lack of a specific development scheme relieved it
of the responsibility to amend the comprehensive plan. We do not believe these views are
consistent with state law or the public expectation that government be transparent.
Effect of Condition
The public was excluded from all discussion about the proposed development until after the
agreement with the developer was signed. The Port established a Waterfront Advisory
Committee to solicit public input into the proposed development after it had signed the
agreement
and after considerable objection from the public.
As a result, the Commission did not fulfill its responsibility to be accountable to the public. The
Port has obligated and spent a significant amount of public funds and assets without adequate
public involvement in these decisions.
Recommendation
We recommend the Port ensure it informs and involves the public in its decisions regarding the
use of public resources. We also recommend the Port adopt a comprehensive scheme in
accordance with state law that includes all proposed harbor improvements. As significant
changes in direction arise, the Port must amend its comprehensive plan accordingly."
WSDOT presents SR-14 plan for improved safety and expansion
Sunday, March 02 2008 @ 12:08 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
WSDOT has unveiled its plans for safety and expansion on SR-14 that runs into and through
Camas and Washougal. The plan calls for increasing lanes from two to four, starting at 6th
Avenue and ending at Union Street. At Union, there will be a half-diamond interchange, with
on/off ramps on the west side of the interchange. These ramps will connect with an underpass
that takes traffic through roundabouts at the end of each ramp, allowing traffic to keep flowing
without stopping as it enters and exits SR-14. Frontage roads on either side of SR-14 will allow
traffic flow into the business and residential areas. Second Street will be restricted to right-in
and right-out only, as will 6th Street. A median barrier will be placed on SR-14, separating
eastbound and westbound traffic.
WSDOT appears to have developed a plan that puts safety first and foremost. There will be no
traffic lights until 15th Street, which will allow traffic ease of flow through previously dangerous
bottlenecks. No one wishes to see the horrific accidents that took lives and severely injured so
many in the past. This plan appears to improve the safety needed to avoid this in the future.
WSDOT will be presenting this plan to the public on April 22nd (note change in date!!) from 4-
7PM at the Camas Police Station. They will also present options for future completion of SR-14
all the way to 32nd Street. Construction for the current project is to begin in 2010, with
completion in 2012.
To view WSDOTs plan, go to "MyDownloads" and click on the file to view WSDOTs drawing of
the plan.
Joint Public Meeting: Cities of Washougal and Camas, Port of Camas-Washougal to be held
February 19th.
Monday, February 11 2008 @ 07:21 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Event Title: Meeting of the C-W City Councils
Where: Camas City Council Chambers
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Time: 4:30 PM PST
The Cities of Camas and Washougal are holding a joint public meeting of the City Councils on
Tuesday, February 19th at 4:30PM. The cities have invited the Port of Camas-Washougal. The
meeting is planned for Camas City Council Chambers at Camas City Hall. If anticipated
attendance is large, the location will be moved to an as yet undetermined location. There will be
notification from the Port (see website www.portcw.com) to let you know as soon as they are
notified.
Items to be discussed: SR-14 and the new community center, plus other items of importance.
Please attend this most important meeting that includes our local governmental agencies
working jointly, as well as the public. A report from WSDOT will be the first thing on the agenda.
House Bill 3292: Recording Executive Sessions under the Open Public Meetings Act.
Monday, February 11 2008 @ 07:04 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
A Bill that appeared to have died, has now been revived and is currently being considered. The
Bill Digest reads:
3292 - DIGEST
Requires a governing body holding an executive session
under this act to make a verbatim audio recording of the
complete executive session and retain the recording for a
period of two years. Such recordings are public records not
subject to public inspection and copying under chapter 42.56
RCW except by court order as specified in this act, or unless
authorized by the governing body.
Provides in an action under chapter 42.30.110 RCW
alleging a violation of the executive session provisions in
this act, a party challenging the lawfulness of the executive
session bears the burden of proof.
Provides if the party challenging the lawfulness of the
executive session supports its allegation with credible
evidence, supported by declaration or affidavit, the court
shall review the entire verbatim audio recording in camera.
After such review, if the court finds that the executive
session was not in compliance with the provisions of this
chapter related to such session, it may order disclosure of
only those portions of the verbatim audio recording of the
executive session found not in compliance, subject to such
other exemptions as may exist in law. The remainder of the
verbatim audio recording found to comply with this chapter
shall not be disclosed.
The following is the current process and progress of the bill. For further information about this
bill, see http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2008&bill=3292
HB 3292 - 2007- Recording executive sessions under the open public meetings act.
History of Bill
as of Monday, February 11, 2008 6:46 PM
Sponsors: Representatives Kessler, DeBolt, Miloscia, Upthegrove, Kelley, Hurst
By Request: Attorney General, State Auditor
2008 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 29 First reading, referred to State Government & Tribal Affairs. (View Original Bill)
Feb 4 Public hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs at 8:00 PM.
Feb 7 Executive action taken in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs at 6:
00 PM.
SGTA - Executive action taken by committee.
SGTA - Majority; do pass.
Minority; do not pass.
Feb 8 Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
Click "Read More" for the The February 10, 2008 Columbian editorial regarding this Bill.
Record the Meetings : Bipartisan support of brilliantly written bill should lead to approval by
legislators
The Columbian
Sunday, February 10, 2008
It's difficult to imagine how one could disagree with a bill that requires audio tapes of executive
sessions, when those tapes could be heard only by a judge, and when those tapes could be
made public only when a judge finds wrong-doing. And how could one disagree with a bill that
has bipartisan support from highly respected Republican State Attorney General Rob McKenna,
Democratic State Auditor Brian Sonntag, two Republican state representatives on a key House
committee and two Democratic lawmakers on the same committee?
But then there's the twisted logic of Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt. Last week Boldt
told the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs: "When you put a tape
recorder in front of an executive session, you may not say that uncomfortable question." Boldt's
comment prompts us to repeat our question: How could a tape recorder at a meeting be a
problem when attorneys are present, when the only outside person who could listen to that tape
would be a judge, and when the public would learn about the proceedings only if the judge
finds wrongdoing?
Mark Brown, lobbyist for the city of Vancouver, said in opposing House Bill 3292: "I'm not saying
people haven't strayed in executive session. I'm saying it's the exception to the rule." That might
be true, but Sonntag found more than 460 violations of executive session rules between 2004
and 2007.
McKenna said, "The advice given by attorneys will be protected. The standard (for bringing a
challenge) is fairly high for the challenger and the judge."
Because both city- and county-government associations put up such a stink before the
committee, HB 3292 appeared to have died Tuesday when it failed to come up for a vote.
However, the bill was resurrected Thursday night, thanks in part to the efforts of state Rep.
Bruce Chandler, R-Granger. He said in a statement after the committee advanced the bill that
he supported "keeping government accountable to citizens. This bill would ensure that
business done behind closed doors is protected unless there is serious question about what
was said."
There's another point to consider. Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder
there, just to document how properly they're performing their jobs and to remove any doubt to
the contrary?
The only reason any public official could oppose this bill would be fear of doing something
wrong, and if that happens, wouldn't it be best if a judge and then the public found out about it?
HB 3292 is brilliantly crafted. It provides as much protection for proper behavior as it provides
scrutiny of improper behavior. Legislators should stop listening to the cowering whiners and
pass the bill. The public has the right to know about violations of executive session rules.
"Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder there?"
Ken Powell, former Port Commissioner's letter to the editor: "Walk Away from Project"
Thursday, January 31 2008 @ 07:53 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
One of our former Port commissioners, Ken Powell, submitted this letter to the Columbian's
editor.
________________________________________________________________
The Columbian Opinion section: Letter to the Editor
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Walk away from project
The Post-Record Jan. 8 story regarding RiverWalk quoted Port of Camas-Washougal attorney
Shawn MacPherson: "The port's position remains the same (as) when RiverWalk purported to
exercise the option. Several contingencies were not met. The option has lapsed. Our position
has not really changed."
I believe that this option agreement was seriously flawed and should not have been agreed to by
the port. That it probably favors the developers financially is obvious by John McKibbin's
statement, "We are moving to binding arbitration." Commissioners should not agree to
arbitration, but should vigorously support attorney MacPherson's contention that "the option
has lapsed." The port director and commissioners have a legal responsibility to protect port
property and grow district taxpayers' investment in the port.
The public should have been more directly involved in the study and selection process. It is time
for the port commission to walk away from RiverWalk. If port taxpayers agree, a more open
planning process should be implemented - one that maximizes public access to the river,
enhances recreation opportunities, preserves existing parks and open space, and provides for
an appropriate financial return to the port. Move on before any more mistakes are made.
Ken Powell
Vancouver
CCIA supports input from all Port Stakeholders for proposed 127 acre East Industrial Property
rezone
Saturday, January 26 2008 @ 04:14 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
On December 27, 2007, Concerned Citizens In Action was interviewed by J.D. White as
"stakeholders" in the Port of Camas-Washougal District. This interview was part of the
beginning of the Port's gathering of public input regarding consideration for a zone change for
127 acres of Port Industrial land. This property is directly East of the current Industrial Park, and
connects directly to Steigerwald National Wildlife Refuge.
During this interview, CCIA's primary comment, which was stated many times, was that all
residents of the Port District, as well as those in bordering areas that express an interest,
should be considered the true stakeholders. We suggested several additional '"stakeholders" to
be interviewed, and our suggestions were taken; the Port added additional "stakeholders" to
the interview process.
CCIA encourages each interested citizen to provide their input to J.D. White and/or the Port of
Camas-Washougal. Public input is important in this process, since this property being
considered for rezone belongs to the citizens of the Port District.
CCIA suggests that each citizen take the time to review the interview questions and submit
their own input to the Port. Read further for a copy of the interview questions, which you are
free to copy for your own records. Click on "Read More" below.
To download an original copy (prepared by J.D.White), Click on "MyDownloads" for the file.
You may also obtain a copy of the Port's "East Industrial Rezone Assessment fact sheet" which
describes the rezone process, including gathering further public input. Click on "MyDownloads"
for this file.
Port of Camas/Washougal
East Industrial Park Rezone Assessment Project
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS
The Port of Camas/Washougal is starting a process to determine whether to pursue changing
the uses allowed in the vacant portion of the 127-acre East Industrial Park from light and heavy
industrial uses to a range of office and business park uses. The Port is also considering under
what conditions it would sell a portion or all of this land.
As an early step in this process, the Port is interviewing key stakeholders to gain insights that
will help the Port evaluate these options. We encourage you to review the accompanying fact
sheet to learn more about the land in question, the evaluation and input process, and ways you
can stay involved in the process.
1. How do you think the Port is perceived in the community?
2. What is your understanding of the ways in which the Port contributes to the community’s
quality of life, especially related to economic vitality?
3. What is your understanding of the Port’s mission or purpose?
4. Are there conditions under which you think the Port should sell property as opposed to
continuing to own and lease property?
5. Within the economic development community, there is a lot of discussion about what types of
development are considered to be industrial development. Which of the following would you
consider to be industrial development:
• 1. Manufacturing plant
• 2. Research laboratories and related office parks
• 3. Offices that house a call center (for example, an office where people are answering
customer service inquiries)
• 4. Distribution center (for example, a facility where goods are received from outside our
region, then sorted and distributed within our region)
• 5. High technology industries, such as a server farm (for example, a facility that houses a large
number of computer servers for a firm that provides internet service)
• 6. Other types of industrial development:
6. Which of these types of industries (1 through 6) do you believe are appropriate uses for the
East Industrial Park and why?
7. What information do you think the Port should consider in assessing whether or not to
change from light and heavy industrial uses to a range of office and business park uses?
8. How do you get information about the Port? Do you get enough and the right kind of
information from the Port? Have you visited the Port’s web site?
Concerned Citizens In Action hold elections for board members and officers for 2008
Friday, January 04 2008 @ 07:01 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action (CCIA), a public not-for-profit corporation registered with the
Washington Secretary of State, conducted its annual election on January 2, 2008. The new
board of directors of CCIA are: Gary Cole, Roger Daniels, Jeff Guard, Mariann Guetter, Richard
Hamby, Martha Martin, Bernice Pluchos, Susan Stauffer and John Wagoner. Ceil Kirchner was
elected Member-at-large. Those elected as 2008 officers are: Dr. Martha Martin, President; John
Wagoner, Vice President; Mariann Guetter, Secretary; and, Roger Daniels, Treasurer.
CCIA voted at their annual membership meeting in November 2007 to focus on several issues:
continued monitoring and public involvement with the Port of Camas-Washougal’s dealings
with Riverwalk, LLC, preservation of Parkers Landing Historic Site, SR-14 expansion and safety,
and other community issues. CCIA’s purpose is: To hold government accountable to the public
while serving the public interest.
Arbitrator sought in Camas-Washougal Port dispute with Riverwalk
Monday, December 31 2007 @ 07:49 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The following news article appeared in today's Oregonian. It appears that the Riverwalk
developers are flexing their muscles and stating that they want the entire 65 acres for their
project. Some of this is not Port owned land, and is not available to these developers. Do they
plan to sue private property owners? And does this clearly indicate that the Port signed an
agreement that they cannot walk away from? It appears that the Port did not protect the public
or our assets, and if an arbitrator decides that this agreement must stand as written, then do we
lose our right to public access to our marina, park, parking, and river? Read and let your
commissioners know your opinion of this latest development.
______________________________________________
Arbitrator sought in Camas-Washougal Port dispute
Posted by The Oregonian December 31, 2007 13:44PM
A group that wants to build housing, restaurants and shops at the Port of Camas-Washougal
announced today it will seek an arbitrator's ruling in a dispute with Port commissioners.
Port and RiverWalk on the Columbia representatives had been talking until mid-December in
an attempt to resolve their differences. The talks came after the Port's announcement in early
November that an option agreement for a waterfront redevelopment with RiverWalk had expired.
RiverWalk officials, however, contend Port officials were seeking changes to the project that
the developers would not accept. Among other things, Port officials said in November they
wanted the project limited to 14.7 acres near the Columbia River that the Port owns.
RiverWalk wants to develop about 50 additional acres the Port contends it does not control.
RiverWalk officials say the entire 65-acre parcel is included in a November 2005 option
agreement.
As first envisioned, RiverWalk was expected to be a $300 million to $400 million project with
housing, retail and offices.
-- Allan Brettman; allanbrettman@news.oregonian.com
Editorial in Columbian presents the facts to Mr. Ripp
Wednesday, December 19 2007 @ 02:55 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The Columbian editoral staff has printed an article today that offers concerns that the new Port
Executive Director must face as he hits the ground running. Among those concerns: Riverwalk
challenges and riverfront access for the public, and reminding the commissioners of their
responsibility to the citizens, with emphasis on transparency.
_________________________________________________________________________
In Our View: Welcome, Mr. Ripp
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 The Columbian
Remember that the port is the public's.
At least one thing will be easier for David Ripp when he takes over as executive director of the
Port of Camas-Washougal on Jan. 7. That will be his commute.
He and his family live in Camas. As executive director of the Port of Woodland for the past 13
years, Ripp, 41, has been making that round trip. Ripp was picked Monday by Port of Camas-
Washougal commissioners to replace Sheldon Tyler, whom they fired in August.
The commute to his new job will be easier, but Ripp's challenges are new and serious. Reasons
for Tyler's termination have not been made public. But Tyler has said the controversy over the
proposed RiverWalk waterfront development, approved in haste and near-secrecy by the
commissioners two years ago and now in jeopardy, was a key factor.
RiverWalk is now envisioned as a 14.7-acre mixed-use development rather than the 65 acre
project developers thought they were getting. This has created two initial challenges for Ripp:
One is to get RiverWalk settled one way or the other. Whether with these or other developers,
we would like to see the Washougal waterfront opened to more public access without
jeopardizing the Parker's Landing Historic Site or the pleasure boat marina or creating a wall of
high rises blocking vistas to the south from north of state Highway 14.
Ripp's other RiverWalk-related challenge is to help the commissioners do a better job of
remembering and acting like the port belongs to the public, which it does. The election of Bill
Ward to the commission should make that part of Ripp's job easier.
Future access to the Columbia River, be it on the old Boise Cascade mill site in Vancouver or in
Washougal, is of considerable importance throughout Clark County, not just to residents of the
respective jurisdictions. Lifestyle amenities such as public waterfronts are a selling point in the
recruiting to the county of industry and hard-to-get employees.
Beyond all that, Ripp will have plenty on his plate, including the future of Grove Field airport
and continued economic development on the port's industrial land. At Woodland, industrial
development was Ripp's chief concern. When he started at the Port of Woodland, the port had
$95,000 in annual lease revenue. That figure now is $495,000.
Best wishes, David Ripp. Be inclusive and transparent - and happy commuting.
David Ripp, former Port of Woodland Executive Director, named Port of C/W Executive Director
Monday, December 17 2007 @ 08:26 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
David Ripp has been hired to replace Sheldon Tyler as the next Port of Camas-Washougal
Executive Director. Mr. Ripp will step into his position on January 7th of 2008, with a yearly
salary of $90,000. According to the pre-prepared press release given to the public at the Port
regular meeting this evening (December 17th), Mr. Ripp will "be heavily involved in the port's
various key capital projects including the East Industrial Park rezone assessment; RiverWalk
waterfront redevelopment project; implementation of the Airport Layout Plan; SR-14 impact
study; and completion of Captain William Clark Park Operations." Mr. Ripp currently resides in
Camas.
Port Meets Offsite for Executive Session
Monday, December 10 2007 @ 09:25 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
This announcement was in Sunday's Columbian in the Public Meetings section. It is assumed
that this is an Executive Session regarding the interview process for the two finalist for Port
Executive Director. Executive Sessions are not open to the public. The last Executive Session
that was held offsite at the Port Attorney's office was in August of this year. It was shortly after
that meeting that Sheldon Tyler and the Port announced he was no longer Executive Director
for the Port of Camas-Washougal.
_________________________________________
From December 9, 2007 Columbian:
Monday
Port of Camas-Washougal, 8 a.m. at the law offices of Knapp, O'Dell & MacPherson, 430 N.E.
Everett, Camas: executive session to discuss personnel.
It's Our River!
Wednesday, December 05 2007 @ 09:52 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Today's Columbian featured an Editorial by the Columbian Staff regarding the current decisions
being made at the Port of Camas-Washougal. We hope the Port is paying attention, since this
reflects what hundreds of people are also telling us.
_________________________________________
In our view: It's Our River
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Columbian Editorial
The importance of what happens at the Port of Camas-Washougal is not limited to residents of
Camas-Washougal - not any more than is the importance of Mount St. Helens limited to
residents of Skamania County or concern for Washington's ocean beaches limited to residents
of Pacific, Grays Harbor, Jefferson and Clallam counties.
Consequently, residents far beyond the port district's legal boundaries have a big stake in the
leadership of the Port of Camas-Washougal. On Dec. 17, port commissioners will pick one of two
finalists as executive director. One is Dave Ripp, who holds the same title at the Port of
Woodland. The other is Patricia Stryker, who for 10 years was property and development
director for the Port of Vancouver.
Port of Camas-Washougal commissioners and former executive director Sheldon Tyler ran into
a storm of criticism for their secretive, no-competition deal for waterfront development with a
local consortium called RiverWalk on the Columbia LLC.
Tyler's sudden departure in August is widely thought to be tied to the RiverWalk debacle. The
election to the commission last month of Bill Ward, a RiverWalk critic, was clearly a
manifestation of voters' disappointment in and distrust of port leadership.
It would have been a healing gesture to the public if the port had waited for Commissioner-elect
Ward to take office in January so he could have been one of the deciders on selection of a new
executive director. Instead, the board has rushed to fill the job by Jan. 1. Interim director Byron
Hanke sifted through 36 applicants and presented the present board with nine names. That
would have been a good place to pause the process until Ward was sworn in.
Still, the public was invited to at least two opportunities to meet the two finalists, and Ward said
Tuesday they are both "fine candidates." He also said he believes he will be allowed to sit in on
interviews with the two finalists. We hope so, and that his comments are invited.
On the other Port of C-W track, plans for initial riverfront development have been scaled back
from 65 acres to 14.7 acres. The new executive director, the three commissioners, including
Ward, and developers and the public will shape the future of that parcel. At least we certainly
hope a deal awaits Ward's participation and reflects public sentiment.
Hanke said Tuesday that considerable progress has been made with RiverWalk for the 14.7
acres, but two or three difficult issues remain.
Ward said Tuesday he doesn't want to make the transition "any rockier than it has to be" but
suggested the Port, with public input, should decide what should go on the site and only then
seek a developer to do it, rather than give the project to RiverWalk by default and let it make a
proposal.
The port should either do as Ward suggests or make clear to the public why that idea is not the
way to go. In any case, the new board of commissioners should move the process along, in the
open, so we can all enjoy our river.
The public meets the Port's finalists for Executive Director
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 09:04 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Two candidates for Port of Camas-Washougal executive director were introduced this evening
during the Port's regular meeting.
The Port Commissioners reported that they will interview the candidates Dec. 10th and
announce a selection Dec. 17th, at the Port's next regular meeting.
The finalists are Patricia Stryker, director of development and community relations for
Columbia River Mental Health Services in Vancouver, and David Ripp, executive director of the
Port of Woodland, a position he has held since 1994. Ms. Stryker was also property and
development director for the Port of Vancouver from 1989 to 1999, and Executive Director to
the YWCA of Clark County for two years. Previously, she also has been an executive with Red
Lion and has worked for the city of Vancouver as property manager and Central Park
coordinator.
The salary range for the Port of Camas-Washougal Executive Director postion is $80,000 to
$100,000.
The new director will replace Sheldon Tyler who was the Port of Camas-Washougal Executive
Director for 22 years.
Nominations and Election for new Board members
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 11:32 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action held a membership meeting on November14th, at which time
nominations for new board members took place. As of November 13th, Bill Ward has resigned
his position as Vice President of CCIA as he steps into his new role of Commissioner for the Port
of Camas-Washougal in January 2008. Also ending their year-long positions with CCIA are:
Roger Daniels, Treasurer, Richard Hamby, Board Member, and Ceil Kirchner, Board Member.
Members nominated for positions on the 2008 board are: Roger Daniels, Richard Hamby, Ceil
Kirchner, Gary Cole, and John Wagoner, of which four will be elected by the members to
become 2008 board members. Ballots were mailed to members on December 1st with stamped
self-addressed envelopes. All ballots must be received by December 31, 2007. The results of
this election will be posted on our website in January, in the Post Record, and by mail and email
to members and friends of CCIA. Officers will be nominated and elected at our first regular
board meeting in January of 2008.
If you would like to become a member of Concerned Citizens In Action, please complete the
application (you can download a copy in MyDownloads), and contact another member to be a
sponsor. If you are unable to contact a member, call (360) 835-1070 or (360) 852-5151 and
request a sponsor. There are no dues or fees to join, and you will be kept up to date regarding
new events, information, and activities regarding our mission: "to hold government
accountable to the public while serving the public interest".
Concerned Citizens In Action: Summary of our first year
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 11:23 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA will file an annual report at the end of the year with the State of Washington. The entire
report is available in MyDownloads. Below is the first portion; the Introduction and Executive
Summary written by President Martha Martin.
___________________________________
Annual Report 2007
Concerned Citizens In Action
Message from your President.
Intoduction and Executive summary.
It’s been a full and rewarding first year for the nine board members of Concerned Citizens In
Action. We formed our non-profit corporation in January 2007, drafted new by-laws, and
developed a logo as a team effort. And what a team!
We started our journey at a picnic table in the Parkers Landing Historical Park. Our first
mission, before becoming CCIA, was to gather over 1100 signatures from the public to “save
our park”. From there, the beginning of Concerned Citizens In Action was born. And have we
been busy!
We held twenty four (24) regular or special meetings, two membership meetings, and one public
forum. Several of us attended all Camas-Washougal Port regular or special meetings, most of
the City of Washougal council meetings, and a few of the City of Camas Council meetings, and
City of Washougal Planning meetings. We pulled public records and read over 500 pages of
documents. We transcribed, word for word, the comments and questions from the pubic who
attended our forum. We set up an informational website and posted some of the Port public
record documents. We wrote letters to the editor, and were interviewed by Dean Baker of the
Columbian for a story about our process. We wrote guest columns to the Post Record, and we
had a booth at the Ice Cream Social held at the Two Rivers Museum. We wrote to the state
auditor about our concerns, and met with the assistant state auditor, presenting her with
documents and information to assist with her performance and financial audit of the Port.
We communicated with the people of our community by visiting Home Owners Association
meetings, talking with people on the phone, talking with them at meetings, and answering
emails. We attended the Open House for the Port and stayed the entire time, listening to people
and asking questions. We attended all Waterfront Advisory Committee meetings, asking
questions and voicing our opinions. We applied to be on the WAC committee when it was being
formed. We talked with the stakeholders in our community, such as the landowners near the
Port, the Puffin Café’, Westlie Motors, the Parkerhouse Restaurant and Victor Espinoza, the
boating community and the Commodore of the Vancouver Yacht Club, Hambleton Brothers, the
PLPAC, and the public at large. We met individually with several City of Washougal Council
members, and presented the City council of Washougal with packets containing public
documents that had not been seen by the public before. We presented the public comments
and questions from our forum to the Port, and also presented them with a critique of their
answers to those comments and questions. We obtained our own legal counsel to learn the
ramifications of the Option Agreement signed by the Port Commissioners. We wrote letters to
WSDOT reinforcing their designs for SR-14 that put safety first. We submitted Press releases,
some that were published regarding our concerns.
As I reviewed our minutes, I realized how hard this group worked. So many hours were spent in
research, talking with people, thinking about our next steps, and attending meetings that it
seemed at times as if we were doing this more than any other thing in our lives. What made this
so important to us? We all felt that there was a government process not acting in the best
interest of its public. We wanted to make people aware of the facts and documents, and allow
them to make decisions about what they wanted done, and how they wanted it done. We had, at
one point, declared an alternative vision called “Dare to be different”. I believe we continued to
use this as a means to develop our goals and strategies, especially when all the messages we
got from the government were “stay the course”.
We have at this time appeared to have had an impact on our Port. They have changed course,
and it is still to be seen what direction this change will take them and the public. Concerned
Citizens In Action will continue to follow the events, and continue with their process regarding
the Port and its actions. And we have other projects in mind to begin to focus on. We hope to
hear from our members what they would like to see as future projects regarding government
accountability and transparency.
(For the rest of the report, go to MyDownloads).
Sheldon Tyler to be awarded "Outstanding Service to Industry" Award by WPPA
Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 09:29 AM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The Washington Public Ports Association is awarding Sheldon Tyler, former Camas-Washougal
Port Executive Director, the "Outstanding Service to Industry" Award. Mr. Tyler will be traveling
to Bellevue, WA to receive his award during the WPPA conference being held from November
14-16. Congratulations to Mr. Tyler!
The WPPA annual meeting has some interesting items on their agenda. One seminar being
offered is "Improving Your Public/Community Involvement Programs". Another is "Operating
Your Port “Transparently”. There is one that appears to be directly related to our current
concerns; "Addressing Citizen Protests". It appears that the public is being considered more
seriously as a partner in the operations of our public ports.
There is one seminar that really seems to address a local concern; the Parkers Landing National
Historical Site: "Managing Your Cultural Resources: Burial and Archeological Sites, Historic
Buildings".
Visit the WPPA website for more information at: http://www.washingtonports.org, or view the
annual meeting agenda at http://www.washingtonports.
org/member_resources/events/annualmeeting.htm.
RiverWalk project at a standstill
Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:05 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
BY CAMI JONER, Columbian staff writer
The Port of Camas-Washougal is backing away from a proposed $350 million project to develop
65 acres on the Columbia River waterfront.
The project has been on the front burner for two years, but the original agreement expired this
month for RiverWalk, a mixed-use project proposed for property owned by the port as well as
several private land holders.
Alan Hargrave, president of the port's three-member commission, said talks on a new agreement
are at a standstill because the port wants to scale back the size of the project.
A previous agreement called for both parties to study and create a master plan for a 65-acre site
that included nearly 50 acres of port-owned property. Now the port is only offering a 14.7-acre
parcel on the east side of its holdings to backers of RiverWalk on the Columbia LLC, a husband-
and-wife group that includes Rick Bowler and Marilee Thompson, owners of One Pacific Corp.;
Mark and Mary Benson of Camas; and John and Nancy McKibbin of Vancouver.
The site's size was scaled down "because property acquisitions didn't happen," Hargrave said.
Neither did plans to relocate the boat launch to the eastern end of the site.
RiverWalk backers rejected the idea of the smaller project and want to move forward with the
original agreement, said John McKibbin, project spokesman.
"We've exercised our right to enter into the long-term ground lease" for the entire portion of
land owned by the port, McKibbin said.
"That doesn't include properties not owned by the port. They're not available," he said.
Envisioned as an upscale mix of shops, restaurants, a hotel, offices, condominiums and public
boating and walking facilities, RiverWalk has drawn a wide range of public comment and
criticism over the past two years.
"The RiverWalk plan is not bad. We've talked for nine months about making it beautiful," said
Roberta Tidland, a local historian and one of 12 citizens on the port-appointed Waterfront
Advisory Committee, convened to study the project.
"But it's just talk," Tidland said. "The port commission will have the final say."
If commissioners and the developers do reach an accord, the new agreement would be up for
public review, said Shawn MacPherson, an attorney for the port.
"We've indicated this would be available to the public," he said.
Port attorneys from Knapp O'Dell & MacPherson have spent the past month trying to get
agreement for the smaller project with William J. Eling, an attorney for RiverWalk on the
Columbia LLC.
"We could not reach an agreement on some of the points," said Byron Hanke, the port's interim
executive director.
A port-issued press release on Monday said RiverWalk developers did not live up to the terms of
the original agreement and failed to:
- Develop a master development agreement between the city of Washougal, the port and
developers.
- Negotiate a long-term ground lease for the proposed overall project.
- Establish a Community Renewal Area, in compliance with the city's land ordinances.
MacPherson said he expects RiverWalk will react to those claims this week.
"We're still waiting to hear from RiverWalk," he said.
Waterfront Redevelopment Agreement Expires, Discussion Stalls
Monday, November 05 2007 @ 06:26 PM PST
Contributed by: President Martin
The Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners presented the public this evening with the
beginning of a victory for the public. According to Shawn McPherson, Port attorney, the
Riverwalk Option Agreement expired November 2nd at midnight. Riverwalk chose to exercise
their option, but the Port said Riverwalk needed to adhere to section 25 and 26 of the
agreement, which states that certain conditions must be met for this option to be extended.
Riverwalk has not met these contingencies.
The Port has attempted to negotiate to reduce the "footprint' of the project, and focus on the
6th Street Property East of Hambleton's Lumber. The Port sees this project as more
"economically feasible". The Port and Riverwalk were NOT able to come to an agreement to
proceed with this project. Shawn McPherson has stated that it is possible that for this issue to
be resolved, arbitration or dispute resolution may be used. Read the Press release below for all
the details. In a few words, this means that the Port has decided to put the public first, and the
developers second. However, the agreement option has been exercised, so stay tuned for
further developments regarding how the Port continues with all of this.
PORToF
CAMAS-WASHOUGAL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 5, 2007
CONTACTS: BYRON HANKE, PPM
PORT OF CAMAS-WASHOUGAL (360) 835-2196 ext. 101
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXPIRES, DISCUSSION STALLS
Washougal, Wash. - Port of Camas-Washougal Board of Commission President, Alan Hargrave,
announced today that the Port has been working with the development group, RiverWalk on the
Columbia, LLC, on a potential smaller waterfront redevelopment footprint with a new agreement
to replace the previous option agreement signed in 2005. However, both parties have been
unable to reach agreement to proceed with a revised waterfront redevelopment project. Port
Commissioners will determine future next steps in upcoming discussion.
For the last three months, the Port has been discussing with the developers the possibility of
commencing the proposed waterfront redevelopment project on a smaller footprint on a 14.7-
acre parcel at the east end of the original 65-acre proposed project. If agreement could be
reached, this smaller proposed concept would be reviewed by the Waterfront Advisory
Committee.
This smaller footprint was proposed for the following reasons:
1) The 14.7-acre site is comprised primarily of vacant port-owned property. Previous studies
have concluded a mixed use development is appropriate for the site.
2) Establish an anchor project to tie in with possible future waterfront expansion.
3) Allow for time to work out details of a larger overall project, specifically pertaining to land
acquisitions needed for a full build-out.
"Despite all the hard work and good intentions to reach consensus, it is unfortunate that both
parties were unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement to proceed with this project,"
said Hargrave. "The Port's project team believes that this smaller footprint would give the
community a chance to work with the Port on fulfilling a waterfront vision that would be more
cost effective and manageable."
PROJECT HISTORY & UPDATE
The Port of Camas-Washougal entered into a public/private partnership with RiverWalk on the
Columbia, LLC, in November, 2005. A joint investment of two years and a total of $400,000 to
explore the feasibility of a 65-acre waterfront development that extends from Parkersville
historic site, upriver to the Port's property at 6th Street.
The 2005 option agreement allowed for site assessments and feasibility studies to master plan
the proposed project. Should the waterfront development proceed, Riverwalk would be
responsible for project construction costs estimated at $300 to $400 million. Pending community
input, public process, and permitting, construction was projected to begin in 2008 with an
anticipated build-out in six to eight years.
While RiverWalk purported to exercise its option to enter into a long-term ground lease with the
Port last week, the 2005 option agreement expired this past Friday with various unfulfilled
contingencies, including the lack of:
b) A Master Development Agreement between City of WaShougal, Port, and Riverwalk.
c) An agreed fully-negotiated long-term ground lease for the proposed overall project.
d) Land acquisitions, necessary for the proposed 65-acre project.
e) Establishment of a Community Renewal Area, in compliance with the City of Washougal's
land ordinances.
"We believe in improving waterfront access and economic development," said Hargrave. "We
will continue to look for opportunities to bring economic and recreational benefits to our
waterfront with our community partners."
ABOUT THE PORT OF CAMAS-WASHOUGAL
Formed in 1935 by a vote of the local community, the Port of Camas-Washougal features a 400-
acre industrial park, a 79-hangar general aviation airport, and a 350-slip pleasure boat marina.
In addition, the port has 40 industrial tenants and over 125 acres for future industrial
development. Popular with recreational and general aviation pilots, Grove Field airport also has
a state-of-the-art fueling station and 14 tie-downs. The Port of Camas-Washougal marina,
largest on the Columbia River, is adjacent to two restaurants, a launch ramp, a marina park,
fueling station, guest docks, and homeport to the Vancouver and Dolphin Yacht Clubs.
More information about the Port of Camas-Washougal and its ongoing projects can be found at
www.PortCW.com.
-END-
Many Speak Out at Port Meeting including former Port Commissoners
Monday, October 22 2007 @ 10:31 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The October 22nd Port of Camas-Washougal's regular meeting was well attended by the public,
at lease 40 people. Many people spoke up and asked intelligent questions and offered valuable
concerns and opininions. Two former port commissioners, Mr. John Raynor and Mr. Bill Macrea-
Smith joined the public in offering their concerns about the Port process regarding the
partnership with Riverwalk LLC. Mr. Macrea-Smith took the time to approach the commissioners
and present to them his concerns based on his experience as a commissioner and knowlegde of
the RCW's. Thank you to both former commissioners.
Many other people in attendance asked about the details of a new agreement that, as was
reported by the port attorney, is being completed and will be ready sometime next week. Details
were not readily available, and no specifics were forthcoming. It was difficult to understand if
this agreement would be an extension of the original Option/Agreement, or a new agreement.
You may review this meeting in detail by obtaining the port's audio recording. You can obtain it
by making a public records request at the Port of Camas-Washougal office.
Letter to State Attorney General from former Port Commissioners
Wednesday, October 17 2007 @ 03:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Former Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners John Raynor and Bill Macrea Smith have
given us permission to post a copy of their letter sent to the State of Washington's Attorney
General, Mr. Rob McKenna. The following is a copy of the text of that letter. For an exact copy of
the letter, see MyDownloads for the PDF version, which includes the actual signatures of these
commissioners.
_________________________________________
September 29, 2007
Mr. Rob McKenna
Attorney General
State of Washington
1125 Washington Street S.E.
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, Washington
98504-0100
Subject: Option Agreement dated November 8th, 2005 - Port of Camas/Washougal and
Riverwalk on the Columbia, LLC - copy attached.
Exhibit A - A blank page as presented to us by the Port of Camas/Washougal
Exhibit B - Process For Forming Community Renewal Area
Dear Sir:
This letter is a request for your office to review the above referenced Option as to its legal and
binding authority over the Port of Camas/WashougaL The Option seems to be poorly written
with many ambiguities making it difficult to determine the rights and obligations of the parties,
in our opinion. It appears to be overly favorable to "Riverwalk" and as such very unfavorable to
the Port of Camas/Washougal and our community. We feel that the Port Commissioners did not
exercise due diligence when they approved the Option Agreement.
Also, your office should be aware that when the Option was signed by the Port Commissioners
Exhibit A was not available. We have approached the Port on three different occasions, the
next to last approach was with the form "Freedom of Information Request", and as a result we
were given the above referenced documents (Exhibit A is a blank page). Our last and most
recent request was made to Port management and we were told that Exhibit A was not available
and that it was being "worked on". If this is true then the Port Commissioners signed an
agreement that was not complete and they did not know what land was being offered for long
term leasing or for the potential purchase by the Riverwalk group. (for the rest of the letter,
please click below for more....see MyDownloads for the PDF version)
We view the subject Option Agreement as a serious situation with potentially great negative
impact on our community and the financial integrity of the Port of Camas/WashougaL We need
help. If the Attorney General of the State of Washington cannot help us then we would
respectfully request advice on how to proceed in our attempt to get the subject Option
Agreement declared null and void.
The signatories to this letter are former Port of Camas/Washougal commissioners.
Sincerely, (please see page 2 for signatures and "copies- to")
John Raynor
718 N.E. 4th Ave.
Camas, Washington
98607
360-834-4527
Bill Macrea Smith
4312 Gifford Place
Washougal, Washington
98671
360-835-5475
cc Port of Camas/Washougal
24 South A Street
Washougal, Washington 98671
Port of Camas/Washougal Commissioners
Allan Hargrave
Richard Gunderson
Jim Carroll
CCIA membership meeting November 14th - 7:00 pm
Tuesday, September 25 2007 @ 11:23 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA will have a membership meeting on November 14th, 7:00pm at the Camas Police Station
Community Room. The address is 2100 NE 3rd Ave., Camas, WA.
This meeting is for current members. Come and join the Concerned Citizens In Action Board of
Directors for a regular meeting. On the agenda will be nominations for board member positions
that are up for election. Learn what CCIA has done during it's very busy first year, and learn
what is coming next in year number two. Light healthy snacks and drinks will be provided.
For questions about this meeting or about CCIA, call (360) 852-5151 or (360) 835-1070.
The Port responds by NOT responding to the Public's Questions
Sunday, September 23 2007 @ 12:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
The Port of Camas-Washougal Commissioners gave the public their response to a request for
answers to the public's questions regarding the proposed RiverWalk development on Monday
September 17th during their regular meeting. Their response? No response.
The original response from the Port at their August 22nd regular meeting was a draft of
Frequently Asked Questions which has now been posted on the Port's website under the
RiverWalk section. This fell short of answering the public's questions (see the document under
"MyDownloads" which details the response, the questions from the public, and suggestions to
the Port as to how they can more directly answer these questions).
Apparently a letter had been mailed to CCIA with an answer to our request that they more
directly respond to important and intelligent questions that the public asked at the June 21st
Public Forum. At the time of the Port regular meeting, CCIA had not received the letter. We
finally received it this week, after the Port regular meeting. This may or may not have been the
fault of the Port. Below is a copy of that letter from Port Commissioner Alan Hargrave. Please
note that the response is to CCIA, and not to the public, from which all of these questions
originally came. Also note that the sentence in bold was also bold in the letter itself (see copy of
original letter in the "MyDownloads" section). We brought the Port your message, and it appears
that they no longer wish to respond to the public.
PORToF
CAMAS-WASHOUGAL
September 12, 2007
Martha Martin, Ph.D.,
President, Concerned Citizens In Action (CCIA)
P.O. Box 64, Washougal, WA 98671
We acknowledge the receipt of your letter and comments on the FAQs received September 10,
2007. The FAQs, as presented at the August 22, 2007, regular Port of Camas-Washougal
Commission Meeting, accurately reflected answers to a majority of the frequently asked
questions posed by the general public and the CCIA, with information as available to the Port at
the time. The FAQs also articulated the position of the current Port of Camas-Washougal Board
of Commissioners.
We appreciate the CCIA questions that were presented to the Port Commission on July 16, 2007.
The CCIA questions have certainly added to the FAQs project that was already in progress
following the release of the WAC Final Report in early June. The FAQs will be updated as
information becomes available.
We are currently working on a draft master plan and a Master Development Agreement (MDA)
that will further outline the next steps for the proposed waterfront redevelopment project. The
Port Board of Commissioners fully supports the Waterfront Advisory Committee's
recommendations, requiring them to be incorporated into any master development plan that
might be approved. Additional public information material and meeting(s) are being considered
and planned as appropriate to communicate this proposed community project.
At this time, we have no further information and will not have an open discussion to add to the
agenda for the September 17th Commission Meeting as you requested. The Port of Camas-
Washougal is committed to an open public process and we will make available appropriate
information as we receive it. Please feel free to subscribe to the proposed project's e-bulletins
at www.portcw.com/distributions/subscribe.php or watch for notices in the local newspapers on
the progress of this proposed project.
Thank you for your input.
Sincerely,
Alan Hargrave
President, Port of Camas-Washougal Board of Commissioners
Cc:
Sherrie Ard, Assistant State Auditor
Waterfront Advisory Committee
24 South 'A: Street, Washougal WA 98671
Phone: 360-835-2196• Fax: 360-835-2197
Email: info@portcw.com • WEB Page: www.portcw.com
Request to the Commissioners: "Please respond at your next Port Meeting"
Thursday, September 13 2007 @ 09:48 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
After many hours of review, an analysis has been completed comparing the Public's questions
that were posed at the June 21st Public Forum, and the Frequently Asked Questions document
that was presented by the Commissioners in response. This document presents your questions,
and attempts to glean some answers from the FAQs. It also includes how well the questions
were or were not answered, comments on the answers, and suggestions for how to more
directly respond to the Public's questions. The document is available for download at
MyDownloads (CLICK above).
CLICK on "Read More" below for the Introduction to that analysis.
Please attend the September 17th regular Port meeting at 4pm. We have requested that the
Commissioners respond with complete answers to your questions.
"How well do the Port's FAQs answer the questions posed by the public for the Commissioners
to answer? "
At a public forum held on June 21st, 2007 at Washougal High School, sponsored by Concerned
Citizens In Action, many questions were generated from the comments of the nearly 200 local
citizens in attendance. It is important to understand that these questions are those of the
general public, and are only being relayed to the Port Commissioners by CCIA. We promised
those attending that we would do our best to obtain answers to their questions from the Camas-
Washougal Port Commissioners. These were condensed down to 19 questions that were
formally presented to the Commissioners at their regular meeting on July 16th, with the request
to have answers ready at their regular meeting on August 22nd.
The Commissioner's response was to have staff members attempt to answer the request in the
form of a Frequently Asked Questions list. The following analysis is our best effort to glean
answers to the public's questions from this FAQ list. The only question that was directly
answered was B: "Would the commissioners be interested in a vote to find out what the
majority of the public wants for their waterfront?" The answer was NO. There were 3 questions
that were poorly or partially answered, 12 questions that were not answered although the FAQs
touched on relevant issues, and 4 questions that were not addressed in any way in the FAQs.
The FAQ list demonstrates that the Port would like to better educate the public. We are pleased
to know that the Port shares our interest in better informing the public. However, we think the
Port’s FAQ list falls short of this goal. We have indicated in our analysis which questions appear
to remain unanswered or only partially answered. We are requesting direct answers to the 18
questions we think have not been properly or completely answered. We are asking for time on
the September 17th regular Port meeting agenda to receive the Commissioner’s complete
answers to the public’s questions. If the Port believes that their FAQ list does in fact answer
certain of these questions, we ask that a workshop be held to allow those particular questions
to be explored in an open forum.
Message read to Port at September 4th regular meeting by a member
Thursday, September 06 2007 @ 05:46 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
My name is Gary Cole, my family and I live in Washougal.
Many of you have heard me speak on be half of myself and Concerned Citizens In Action. I want
to make it clear I’m speaking for myself today with my thoughts and concerns.
There have been questions raised about “Who is the CCIA?” and “What is the CCIA up to?” I
joined the group of concerned citizens only after attending WAC and Port Meetings in regards to
Riverwalk.
My main concern at that time was maintaining Boater access and trailer parking, after having
doubts from the proposed plans. I felt when I spoke to the WAC members and the Port
Commissioners, my thoughts may be not have been taken seriously and with low priority. I also
learned that WAC’s charge was not to be a voice of the public, but rather only to recommend
the wisest and best long term use of the waterfront resources for the maximum public benefit. I
also found that WAC was not addressing the other numerous and “specific” questions being
asked by the public. Their concern seemed to be design concepts, types of businesses and how
to reduce Parkers Landing Historical Park, but include it in the overall theme.
They did not ask questions like: How much? Who’s paying? Who’s profiting, what’s to gain and
more importantly what are the potential losses?
I also heard WAC members, several times dilute “specific” concerns and statements when
brought up by other WAC members. Because they wanted to keep the final report in general
terms. To protect themselves individually and allow the Port Commissioners and the Developers
the ability to interpret the report as they desired.
That’s when I found and joined other concerned citizens to find out more. Which has opened my
eyes to numerous other concerns and questions that relate to the way the proposed
development was originated, several items in or not in the lease agreement, the cost’s to
taxpayers, the potential financial gains and losses, etc.
The CCIA presented the Port Commissioners with the “specific” questions they received in their
public forum and respectfully asked those questions be “specifically” answered. The public has
a right to “specific” answers. Generalized answers and statements only fuel the fire for more
speculation, further increasing the public’s concerns, and diminishing the publics trust in their
elected officials. Trust’s main ingredient is Honesty. Without Honesty and Trust with our Peers,
we all loose our most important personal quality, our Integrity.
Those questions presented are only a few of the questions that are out there to be answered,
there are several more.
As a Realtor, if I was representing the Seller and in this case the Seller is all of us since this is
public property. I would have major concerns towards my fiducial responsibility to my client if I
allowed them to sign such an agreement, and the potential for a law suit for my lack of
performance. I would have at the very least demanded my client seek legal advice from an out of
area, third party legal consultant experienced in this type of transaction. Some of my concerns
would have been:
No escape clause for my client, in this case the Port and the Public.
No performance requirements for the Lessees or Developers.
No performance bonds required to guarantee completion of the project.
What happens if the project is 90% completed and 110% of the funds are spent?
Also the ability for the Developers to find another party to sell to and purchase their interests
without the approval of the Port Commissioners. Which would also allow the new Developers to
do 100% of what they want, again without the Port Commissioners approval.
There’s also nothing to stop the Buyers or Lessees from taking their Developer fees throughout
the project and then walking away prior to completion, leaving the Port and the Public with an
incomplete project and undoubtedly further expense to complete the project.
Another concern due to it’s timing, is the recent change in Port Leadership. Without full and
honest disclosure this will only add fuel to the fire of the public’s speculation, and speculation
is almost always negative in nature.
I ask you what is the public to think, except to suspect Cover Up or even more likely after 22
years of fine service, that he did not agree with the current Commissioners and their plans. So
he was removed, to remove internal opposition during the key time frame of the next 4 months,
and paid “hush” money to keep his concerns and disagreements to himself.
I feel it’s time for all parties to be more open and honest, providing explanations and specific
answers as requested, to rebuild the publics Trust and individuals Integrity.
Remember what we teach our children; Honesty is the best policy!
And it’s never too late to make things right.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you to all who attended the August 22nd Port Meeting
Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Over 85 people attended the August 22nd Port Meeting. In response to our request for answers
to the public's questions from the June 21st Public Forum, the Port offered a list of "Frequently
Asked Questions" which have now been posted on the Port's website.
Read through the list and compare these to the questions in "Public Concerns", which were the
ones presented by the public. Let us know whether you have the answers that you need. We
will follow up with your feedback.
Again, thanks to all who attended the 4pm meeting. Keep attending and let the Port know your
questions and concerns.
Updated Membership Application
Monday, August 27 2007 @ 09:10 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA has updated its membership application (Click on "MyDownloads"). The signature line has
been changed, with the requirement that members understand (rather than agree to) our
purpose: to hold government accountable to the public while serving the public interest. Also,
there are categories for people who wish to help to indicate their interests.
We have heard and taken seriously the feedback that the membership requirements, such as
having a sponsor, or signing the application, may be too restrictive. We hope it may help to
understand our process by knowing the requirements of joining other similar organizations.
Many non-profit organizations require sponsorship to join, such as local business women's
groups and other philanthropic organizations. They may also require an extensivie application
be completed, which is reviewed by their membership for approval, as well as requiring
payment of dues before people are allowed to join. Our requirements are much less. CCIA only
requires that you fill out the membership form, inquire about sponsorship by contacting us at
the phone numbers on the form, and list that person who sponsors you. There is no cost to join.
Your membership application is reviewed by our board of directors. All citizens are welcome to
contact us for sponsorship, and complete a membership application. We encourage people to
call or write with questions about Concerned Citizens In Action.
Please watch our website for our next membership and guests meeting date and location. You
can have an opportunity to join CCIA, ask questions about our organization, meet the Board of
Directors, and learn about our projects regarding holding government accountable. We hope to
see you there!
Attend the August 22nd regular Port meeting for answers.
Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action presented the questions and comments from the June 21st Public
Forum to the Port Commissioners yesterday, July 16th, at the Port of Camas-Washougal Port
office. We presented the Commissioners and the attending public with a written copy of all
questions and comments. This is also posted in our "Public Concerns" section. To view this,
CLICK on the "Public Concerns" link at the top of this page.
We have requested that the Port Commissioners respond to the questions and comments
presented at the July 16th Port meeting by the August 22nd regular Port meeting at 4pm. Attend
this meeting to get answers to your questions regarding the proposed RiverWalk development
project.
The June 21st Public Forum Video tape was transcribed so that all questions asked and
comments expressed by those attending could be gathered and put into a format for
distribution. We presented the Port Commissioners with questions that were directly asked of
them, as well as comments that were related to input for the Port.
We want to thank all citizens who attended the July 16th Port of Camas-Washougal regular
meeting. We hope that you continue to attend Port meetings, as well as Washougal City Council
meetings, Camas City Council meetings, and other public meetings. Your voice as a citizen is
important.
To view the copy of the handout distribute to the Port Commisioners and those attending the
July 16th meeting, CLICK on the "Public Concerns" link at the top of this page.
Welcome and Public Forum Information
Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 09:04 AM PDT
Contributed by: Admin
Welcome to the new home of Concerned Citizens in Action here on the Internet.
This site is continually changing, so visit often. Comments are encouraged.
Concerned Citizens In Action is a Washington State non-profit corporation. We currently have
nine board members, which include four officers: President, Vice President, Treasurer, and
Secretary. Our current focus is the Port of Camas-Washougal's proposed project and
partnership with RiverWalk LLC. We will be looking at other public concerns in the future.
Thank You to All Who Attended the June 21st Public Forum!
Please note that CCIA presented to the Port on July 16th during their 4pm regular meeting.
A copy of the presentation is posted in the "Public Concerns" section link at the top of this page.
CCIA's Public Forum, held at Washougal High School in the Washburn auditorim, was a huge
success. Nearly 200 people attended, and those who spoke offered thoughtful ideas, opinions,
and concerns regarding the proposed RiverWalk development at the Port of Camas-Washougal.
We had several council people who came, a diversity of citizens from both Washougal and
Camas, and Port administrative staff. We want to thank all of you who took time to come and
participate in this public forum that was "by the public and for the public".
During the forum, information expressed by the public was recorded on flip charts, by video,
and audio, and is currently posted on our website. We have distributed this information to the
Port Commissioners, and will be distributing it to the Cities of Washougal and Camas, and other
agencies and government offices. We will be researching your questions, and getting those
questions answered, or letting you know where to find answers.
There are new documents on our website to download that were requested by the public. We
have added a copy of the Option Agreement that the Port signed to form the partnership with
RiverWalk, LLC. Many people have not had the opportunity to see this document. It is public
record, but was never presented openly to the public. The other document is a memo (also part
of public record) that describes the proposed project in detail, including types of buildings to be
constructed and the sizes, as well as the details regarding community development or
condemnation. This document was never openly presented to the public.
Watch our site for updates regarding future events and activities. We want to continue to hear
from you. You may contact us by email at wolflow1@netzero.net, by phone at (360) 835-1070 or
(360) 852-5151, or by mail at P.O. Box 64, Washougal, WA 98671. Let us know your concerns,
thoughts, ideas, and what you may want to do to become involved.
To download any of our public documents, click on "MyDownloads" on the top of our website.
To learn more about Public Concerns and questions, click on "Public Concerns" above.
About Concerned Citizens In Action
Sunday, May 27 2007 @ 05:33 PM PDT
Contributed by: Admin
Concerned Citizens In Action is a Washington State non-profit corporation. It is made up of nine
board members:
Martha Martin, President
Bill Ward, Vice President
Roger Daniels, Treasurer
Mariann Guetter, Secretary
Jeff Guard, board member
Bernice Pluchos, board member
Ceil Kirchner, board member
Susan Stauffer, board member
Richard Hamby, board member
CCIA's Principal Purpose: To hold government accountable to the public while serving the
public interest.
CCIA's Ancillary Purposes:
• To educate the public about the importance of holding government accountable to the public.
• To secure resources from individuals, corporations, and other foundations which will then be
distributed in a manner which will support programs for which federal, state and local funding
is inadequate or otherwise not available.
• To enhance community support for holding government accountable to the public.
• To provide direct support to other charitable organizations created to hold the government
accountable to the public.
• To cooperate with business, industry, government agencies, and individual to develop and
promote programs and activities designed to hold government accountable.
• To raise and administer funds to support capital and educational/operational needs in keeping
with the intent of donors and the objectives of the Concerned Citizens In Action.
• To serve as trustee of any revocable or irrevocable trust according to the provisions of a trust
instrument and Washington State law. Provided, Concerned Citizens In Action may accept an
appointment as trustee only upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board of Directors
present at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors, if such notice of the
proposed appointment to service as trustee is contained in the notice of the meeting.
Concerned Citizens In Action welcomes new members with a sponsorship from one of our board
members.
Interested persons can download the application from our website, or request one be mailed by
dropping us a note at P.O. Box 64, Washougal, WA 98671. There are no dues but donations are
gratefully accepted. Our current project is the proposed project and partnership between the
Port of Camas-Washougal, and RiverWalk LLC.
Response to Rich Gunderson's letter to the editor by local Washougal resident
Friday, May 11 2007 @ 04:17 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
A local Washougal resident, Richard Anderson, posted this response in our commment section.
It is his response to the letter to the editor in the Post Record dated 05/08/07 entitled " Port
invites public feedback" which was submitted by Rich Gunderson, Port of Camas-Washougal
Commission President.
He gave his permission to have it posted on our feature page. Mr. Anderson includes Mr.
Gunderson's letter with Mr. Anderson's responses.
(Mr. Gunderson writes: )
“Port cities all over the country are engaged in ways to reshape and redefine their waterfronts.
Communities of all sizes have transformed underused waterfront areas for a wide array of new
uses, from parks and trails to mixed-use and residential projects, as well as industrial activity.”
(Mr. Anderson's response:)
Communities don’t transform their port areas, wealthy developers like RiverWalk-LLC do. That’s
why the Washington State Government is working on legislation to stop developers like
RiverWalk-LLC from using privileges of ‘eminent domain’ to muscle home grown business and
home owners out of their properties. Try an Internet search for, “RiverWalk LCC” and you’ll see
just how huge and influential these wealthy developers have become nation-wide.
(RG) “When a group like RiverWalk, LLC, approached the Port of Camas-Washougal with an
opportunity to jointly explore ideas to revitalize the waterfront, it simply made sense for the port
to consider these possibilities. These days, private-public partnerships are often the key to
many successful projects due to limited public funds and increasing development costs. “
(RA) The Port didn’t just “explore or consider” RiverWalks’ “opportunities”- they spent $200,000
in public funds on a study of RiverWalks’ Condominium & supporting Mini-Mall development
proposal. If the proposal is eventually deemed not in the public interest, our public funds are
lost forever.
(RG) “With the formation of the member Waterfront Advisory Committee [WAC], we hope great
ideas and unrealized opportunities will emerge — improve waterfront access, create new
economic activity, preserve and enhance historic sites, and inject new energy into our
community. Sponsored by the Port of Camas-Washougal, the WAC represents a cross-section of
our citizens with diverse perspectives to provide a strong community voice. They have met, and
taken public comments, regularly since last October to share their ideas for this key community
undertaking.”
(RA) The WAC was formed months after an audience of over 300 local concerned residents at
the WHS Gymnasium gave Roberta Tidland a resounding standing ovation for her remarks
against the RiverWalk proposal to use local improved Park property to build Condominiums and
a supporting Mini Mall. The WAC is by no means a representative sample of the local community
– it is made up of mostly professional Business Owners, Bankers, Engineers, Managers and CEO’
s with few members likely below the $100,000 annual income level.
(RG) “The WAC recognizes that our community’s quality of life draws from a unique blend of
natural beauty, small town friendliness, historical values, and an abundance of recreational
opportunities. Their goal is to gather a list of features for the best long-term uses of waterfront
resources for maximum public benefit.”
(RA) Then why allow RiverWalk-LCC into our Community? All these developers want is to
pound out of our local government a license for them to build very profitable Condominiums
and shops which would effectively do away with of the small town qualities mentioned above.
(RG) “Throughout this process, the Waterfront Advisory Committee has informed the public of
their progress, and reached out for public input and comment. They are currently compiling the
top and best-use priorities, with public input, that will be submitted to the port commissioners.
These recommendations will contribute to the first steps in creating a blueprint for a waterfront
vision for current and future generations.”
(RA) In his concluding comments to its April 25 meeting, the C-W Port’s ‘WAC’ hired spokesman
Arnold Cogan admitted that, “the Committee was never intended to represent the public.” They
were selected by the Port to help promote their $200,000 Condo propaganda via the guise of
public input.
(RG) “The first draft of a master plan for the waterfront will be next, and throughout this
process, the port welcomes you to stay informed and get involved. You may simply want to get
the latest information as the plan takes shape, and invite us to speak to you and your group.
Whatever your level of interest, we encourage you to learn more and watch for news in port
newsletters, and at www.PortCW.com where all meeting notices, reports and activities are
posted.”
(RA) If the Port were really serious about seeking public input they would use a large meeting
hall like the WHS’s new auditorium instead of trying to jam hundreds of local folks into the
limited space available at the C-W Port Office. Thankfully, another group has reserved this
facility for a public meeting:
The community needs to weigh in heavily! Plan to participate in a truly open forum to be hosted
by Concerned Citizens In Action (CCIA) on June 21, at 6:30 pm in the Washburn Performing
Arts Center at Washougal High School. Your voice is essential toward developing your
waterfront for the greatest benefit to the community as a whole.
(RG) “The port owes it to the public to explore these concepts that may ultimately enhance our
economy and our waterfront. The mission of the port is to create and sustain jobs and
recreational opportunities for this community. We believe that now is the time to take a good
hard look at these possibilities that hold the potential to improve our economy and our
waterfront.”
(RA) The Port should “create and sustain jobs” in the Industrial Park property which prior Port
Commissioners purchased and zoned for that purpose. We already have recreational facilities
near the Port Office in the form of a Marina and Public Parks. The Ports’ argument that high-
rise Condominiums built on confiscated Park land, Marina parking land and eminent domain-
leveraged buyouts of local business land constitutes fulfillment of their public “Mission” to
promote jobs is essentially a self-serving misrepresentation of the C-W Port Charter.
Richard Anderson
Washougal, WA
Local Citizen writes "Attention All Trailer Boaters"
Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:15 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Local Washougal Citizen Gary Cole has expressed concerns regarding how the proposed Port
project with RiverWalk LLC could impact Trailer Boaters. He has asked for a copy of his letter to
the editor to be posted on our website. The following are the contents of his letter:
Attention All Trailer Boaters
With the arrival of May we will soon celebrate the start of Boating Season. But, while we've had
our boats tucked away for the winter, the Port of Camas-Washougal has been making plans to
reduce boat trailer parking at the publicly owned boat ramp we enjoy.
Boaters seem oblivious to this situation and future impact. If we Boaters don't wake up and get
involved soon, we'll drive to our favorite boat ramp and find no place to park. We'll have to
launch and return the trailer home and back again. Along with the major inconvenience, this
will cause unnecessary congestion at the marina. The other option effects all Clark County
Boaters; we'll be faced to use other limited ramp facilities, filling their already overcrowded
trailer parking.
"RiverWalk" has mentioned dry rack (stack) storage; There are two type of Boaters: marina/slip
boaters who might be interested in dry rack storage and trailer boaters like myself. I prefer
loading my boat at home, saving time at the ramp and unloading at home at my leisure, etc. Also
being able to do maintenance at home and most of all having my boat in my control to use at
other facilities and lakes, as I wish.
This ramp/launch facility is currently on publicly owned property, an agreement has been made
to lease it to Developers who would take over control and manage as they see most profitable.
Not to mention the costs of the infrastructure improvements that will be paid by the tax paying
public, who haven't even had a chance to vote on it or truly have their concerns considered. It
appears local debvelpers have persuaded port commissioners that retail shops and
condominiums are more important than Boater's access to the river (our area's most important
recreational resource) now and well into the future. The Camas-Washougal boat ramp facility is
the most used facility south of Olympia, and a major asset to our area, let's insure it's there for
future generations. Are you with me, to do all we can, so this does not become reality? For more
information, to add your comments and join the concerned (showing strength in numbers) go
to: www.concernedcitizensinaction.org.
Gary Cole
Washougal
New discussion Forum
Saturday, April 14 2007 @ 10:13 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
CCIA has added a Forum to our site. Click on the link above and participate in discussions
regarding the listed topics. You must be a registered user to post, and all users can view posts.
CCIA is hosting Public Forum on Thursday, June 21st at 6:30pm at the Washougal High School.
We will be meeting in the Washburn Performing Arts Center. Come and join us, and take this
opportunity to express your opinions and ideas regarding the Port of Camas-Washougal's
proposed waterfront development. We will be taking your input and presenting it to the Port,
and to local and state officials. This forum is by the public and for the public, so it offers a
chance to have all ideas and concerns openly expressed. We will also have information that you
may request to be sent to you following the forum.
We hope to see you there! Bring your friends and neighbors. All are welcome.
President Martin
Critics raise concerns on RiverWalk project
Thursday, April 12 2007 @ 09:52 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Critics raise concerns on Riverwalk project
Thursday, April 12, 2007
BY DEAN BAKER Columbian staff writer
WASHOUGAL - With four critics raising sharp questions, the Port of Camas-Washougal's
waterfront advisory committee Wednesday night accepted a summary of the comments from 91
area residents on the proposed $300 million Riverwalk development.
In general, the public seemed to support the proposed 65-acre project. The 91 commented
during or since an open house on March 28. They said they want to be sure the commercial-
residential riverside development suits the Camas-Washougal area's ambiance.
They want it built on an easily accessible, small scale. They want it to respect and enhance the
history of the area, guarantee clear sight lines to the river and Mount Hood, give boat and
pedestrian access to the river and preserve green, natural areas.
They want the new project to enhance rather than disrupt existing downtown businesses.
That's a tall order for private Riverwalk LLC partners Marilee Thompson, Rick Bowler, Mark and
Mary Benson, John and Nancy McKibbin, and their public partners, the port commissioners.
The port and the developers each have committed $200,000 and two years to planning the
development node that would sweep along the river from Union Street to a point east of
Hambleton Lumber Co. The plan is to start building in 2008 and work on the project for eight to
10 years.
But a group called Concerned Citizens in Action has balked, complaining the plan has lacked
public input and that the developers were chosen swiftly in nonpublic sessions without benefit
of an open search for other business options.
Richard Hamby and his wife, Martha Martin, said they've been unable to find out why the project
is being hurried along or what the special qualifications are of the Riverwalk partners. "We'd
like you to tell us why this is the wisest and best use for the maximum public benefit," said
Martin, a Washougal psychologist.
Hamby said the process of launching the development idea "started off real clumsy," without
time for adequate public comment.
Lawrence Dvorak, a resident of the area for more than 60 years, said inadequate consideration
has been given to the fact that the river floods on occasion and could endanger the
development. "It's a delicate area here, and you are encouraging a bad thing," he said.
"Once you lose this," he added, gesturing through the port windows at the river, "you can't get
it back."
He also objected to the use of any public money for the development.
John Wagoner said he's been using the port marina for more than 40 years. He said the
proposal before the public provides far too little parking for the huge influx of boaters in the
summer.
"We are the citizens. We use the river. We don't want to lose it," he said to applause to those
attending.
Members of the committee agreed to consider all questions before they hand their
recommendations back to the port commissioners for action by the end of May.
Update
Previously: Port of Camas-Washougal commissioners signed an agreement in October 2005
with Riverwalk LLC to lay preliminary plans for a proposed 65-acre, $300 million development on
the Columbia River between Union Street and the east end of Hambleton Lumber Co.
What's new: During a two-hour session Wednesday night, 33 persons turned out - and several
objected - as the port's 13-member waterfront advisory committee discussed how to shape the
proposed project.
What's next: The committee will meet again April 25 to draft recommendations for the proposed
development. Construction could begin next year and take up to a decade to complete.
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/04122007news125930.cfm
April 6, 2007 Columbian Editorial: Limiting Condemnation with a New Bill
Friday, April 06 2007 @ 01:45 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
In Our View: Eminently Sensible
Friday April 6, 2007
By Columbian editorial staff
Bill limiting condemnation of land by ports for tourism projects could be felt here
A bill moving through the Legislature might take the eminent domain hammer out of the hands
of the Port of Camas-Washougal in the proposed 65-acre RiverWalk project on the banks of the
Columbia. The same thing goes for any other port district in the state that gets into the
business of attracting tourists, which was made easier by the same bill.
That’s good, which is not to say RiverWalk or other potential port projects are a bad idea if done
right with public input. But condemning private property for a nonpublic benefit is bad policy.
The bill in the state that passed the House of Representatives 89-7 Wednesday paved the legal
road for a waterfront development in Bremerton that would involve the local port district as a
participant. A provision would have allowed port districts to seek condemnation of private land
under eminent domain.
But the American public has been rightly outraged by local governments condemning private
land for private projects, thanks to exposure of the practice on the “60 Minutes” program and a
2005 U.S. Supreme court Case, Kelo vs. New London, Conn.
An amendment by Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center, that had bipartisan support removed the
power of eminent domain from port districts that might otherwise have used it to get land for
tourism-promotion purposes.
“We feel eminent domain has a place with schools, hospitals, roads and other things of public
necessity,” Curtis said Thursday, “but not tourist facilities. We don’t want the taking of
someone’s land” for that purpose.
At the same time, other aspects of the bill, SB 5339, appear to clear the way for all ports to get
into the tourism-promotion business. Given that port districts typically own waterfront property,
which is a natural draw, and given that ports are supposed to create jobs, the bill has much to
commend it and could influence future developments at ports all along the Columbia River. But
it’s best to do that by purchasing private land, not condemning it.
Byron Hanke, consultant to the Port of Camas-Washougal on the proposed RiverWalk project,
said Thursday that talks between the port and private landowners in the “footprint” of the
proposed development are ongoing but have not produced any deals so far.
“At this point, eminent domain has not entered into the conversations on this project,” Hanke
said.
Much of the 65 acres is owned by the port, but a large chunk is Hambleton Lumber Co. land.
The Parker House Restaurant is another privately owned parcel.
As if further evidence were needed that RiverWalk has its critics, Roger Daniels of Washougal,
a leader of Concerned Citizens in Action, fired off an e-mail Thursday saying he was “delighted”
to read about Curtis’ amendment passing. “Maybe Hambleton Brothers may soon have some
protection,” Daniels said.
Vancouver Business Journal article
Thursday, March 29 2007 @ 08:21 AM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Vancouver Business Journal
Friday, March 16, 2007
RiverWalk Under Scrutiny
Advocacy group vague on plan, but looking to change port policy
By Megan Patrick
VBJ Staff Reporter
A new public advocacy group, Concerned Citizens in Action, wants to change the way ports and
other government agencies conduct business, and is using the proposed Riverwalk
development as a springboard. Riverwalk is planned for the Camas-Washougal waterfront.
The group claims not to be taking issue with the development or its developers, Riverwalk on
the Columbia LLC, but rather the Port of Camas-Washougal. The port didn't break any rules in
entering into the agreement with the developers, but was not acting as a good steward of the
community in the process, said CCIA Treasurer Roger Daniels.
On Nov. 8, 2005, the two groups entered into a lease option agreement, forming a joint public-
private partnership and committing both sides to spending up to $200,000 each to conduct
feasibility studies on the land Riverwalk hopes to transform into a high-density mixed use
development of retail shops, restaurants, condominiums and recreational facilities. The
agreement expires on Nov. 7 of this year.
The lease agreement was presented and signed at the same port commission meeting, not
giving the public a chance to speak out or even understand what was being proposed, said
CCIA President Martha Martin.
Ports are required to give 24 hours notice to the media when a special meeting is called, and
the Port of Camas-Washougal did that, said Executive Director Sheldon Tyler.
"They did the bare minimum in letting the public know what was being negotiated," Daniels
said. "Our goal is to make the Port of Camas-Washougal commissioners the example of how not
to operate."
The group has a "pretty elaborate plan," is working with state agencies and hopes to have some
answers by fall, he said.
John McKibbin, one of Riverwalk on the Columbia LLC's principal partners, said the CCIA is
stuck in the past.
"Was it legal? Yes," he said. "Was it consistent with the way ports conduct business? Yes.
People think (the port is) a municipality, but ports operate under different statutes; they were
formed to create jobs and build the local economy. As such, they have half a foot in the private
sector, but are still public."
Ports commonly conduct land-use negotiations in executive session, said Charla Skaggs, a
spokeswoman for the Washington Public Ports Assoc.
But Daniels said there should be rules against introducing and passing an agreement of
Riverwalk's magnitude and impact at the same meeting with very little notice.
"It is very poor government operation," he said. "It didn't need to occur so quickly. If they truly
cared about support from the community, they would have alerted the public to their plans or
conducted hearings."
Since the lease option agreement was signed, the port formed a 13-member Waterfront
Advisory Committee, which meets regularly to make recommendations for the wisest long-term
use of waterfront resources for maximum public benefit.
It is designed to be an advisory branch independent of the port and the developers, but Martin
said the committee members weren't chosen randomly and many of them are close associates,
friends or colleagues of the developers.
Tyler doesn't deny that some of the committee members have agendas; some in regard to the
development, others for protecting parks and green spaces.
Martin is also concerned that the port didn't open the project to bids.
Initially, Riverwalk on the Columbia LLC approached the port commission with the development.
"These developers don't have a track record with a project of this scale," she said. "They're
residential developers. With the lease-hold tax option as opposed to a sales tax, the goal is to
split the profits 50-50, but it's hard to know what those numbers are going to be because there's
no track records."
There is no legal requirement for the port to seek bid proposals, and McKibbin said ports rarely
do.
The lease option is for 50 years with an option for a 30-year extension, Martin said, during
which no one else can develop on the property.
"So when that is said and done, the port will be stuck with 80-year-old buildings," she said.
"Who is going to pay for upkeep then?"
Daniels said the group supports development on the river, "but we want a open, collaborative,
truly community-driven project if it’s going to happen on public land."
Currently, the developers, represented by Vancouver attorney Stephen W. Horenstein, are
putting together the master development agreement that will finalize the terms of the private-
public venture, set to be enacted on Nov. 8. The terms must be mutually agreed upon, Tyler
stressed.
Once the Waterfront Advisory Committee finalizes its recommendations, they go to the port
commission for review. Riverwalk on the Columbia LLC will then design a project proposal that
will go to the City of Washougal for site plan review.
The city will hold public hearings, and assuming the project gets the go-ahead from the city, the
developers will draw up preliminary entitlements for engineering and roads and then must gain
final approval from the city before any dirt can be turned, McKibbin said.
That point is at least a year away, he said.
The port commission is still very much in charge, Tyler said. And the developers are ready to
look into the future.
"Frankly, I'm done with (this group)," McKibbin said. "This issue is 15 months old. The bottom
line is that we're going to generate 1,045 jobs on the build-out and millions of dollars in
revenues and open up the waterfront, which is not open now unless you're a boater.
"There are a few people still living 15 months in the past, and I think they're going to be stuck
there. This is the track we're on."
Attend the August 22nd regular Port meeting for answers.
Tuesday, July 17 2007 @ 10:33 PM PDT
Contributed by: President Martin
Concerned Citizens In Action presented the questions and comments from the June 21st Public
Forum to the Port Commissioners yesterday, July 16th, at the Port of Camas-Washougal Port
office. We presented the Commissioners and the attending public with a written copy of all
questions and comments. This is also posted in our "Public Concerns" section. To view this,
CLICK on the "Public Concerns" link at the top of this page.
We have requested that the Port Commissioners respond to the questions and comments
presented at the July 16th Port meeting by the August 22nd regular Port meeting at 4pm. Attend
this meeting to get answers to your questions regarding the proposed RiverWalk development
project.
Public Concerns Regarding the RiverWalk Proposed Project
July 16, 2007 Presentation to the Port of Camas-Washougal
Public Questions and Comments from the June 21, 2007 Public Forum
Sponsored by Concerned Citizens In Action
Questions posed by the public for the Commissioners to answer:
• How do the commissioners justify turning this publicly owned land over to private developers
for profits instead of maintaining the current public uses?
• The public would like to put this to a vote. They would like to decide if this project is
something they want. Since this proposed project is larger than previous projects and requires
a much larger financial commitment, would the port commissioners consider allowing the
public to place this on a ballot? Would the commissioners be interested in a vote to find out
what the majority of the public wants for their waterfront?
• The public expressed concerns about using public money to fund the feasibility study before
finding out if this is a direction they want to go. What has been spent to date, do you have
detailed itemized expenditures for what has been currently spent as well as what will be spent,
and how much of that is included in public records?
• The public is concerned about loss of public access, with this being the most utilized portion
of public lands that is unencumbered by the railroad. What will you do to keep or increase
public and recreational access, as is stated in the Shorelines Management Act of 1971?
• What do the commissioners know about the projected profit from this project? How much of
this profit will come from the citizens of Camas and Washougal? This is in reference to the
possible need to use taxes for purchase of property, the costs to get the property pad ready, and
other concerns regarding costs the public must cover.
• The public is requesting what the commissioners think is the actual profit to the developers
vs. what the public will eventually see as a gain or advantage for them?
• The public is concerned about the cost to acquire additional private property. What are the
projected property purchase costs to acquire enough land for the entire 65 acres? Will there be
a raise in taxes to pay for this?
• The public is asking why they were not considered first in this venture before partnering with
the developers. What about a totally public option being considered first?
• Will the commissioners support the use of eminent domain or condemnation to acquire
additional private property as was described in the Option Agreement signed in November of
2005?
• How will the commissioners guarantee that the boating public will have adequate boat trailer
parking? Four lanes require at least 200 spaces, and we currently have 135. Will there be
enough boat trailer parking throughout the several phases of development? Some of the
conceptual drawings show no boat trailer parking at all, and another shows boat trailer parking
being added in the future, about 5-6 years. Is this what the commissioners want? Will the
commissioners guarantee at least the current level of boat trailer parking for the 6 to 8 years of
development? Has the Port started the permit process for a new boat launch and trailer
parking?
• The public has expressed concern about the need for this development to be “economically
feasible”, and the public also is concerned about the value of the public’s recreational use and
access or availability to this natural and valuable resource from now and into the future. How
do the commissioners view the value of this area? How do they see this in regards to a legacy
for future generations? How will they guarantee the public will continue to have access to this
pubic land into the future?
• What is the reason to bring in a “general manager” (referring to Scot Walstra) at this late
date? The public is wondering when consideration of “every question” will be done and
answered before moving forward with this project? Will the commissioners leave time for
deliberation of all public concerns before giving the “green light” to this project?
• The public has expressed concern that the process for environmental and archeological
protections has not begun. What is being considered in regards to protecting the Shoreline and
Columbia River in regards to this project? What will be the steps taken?
• What is the commissioners understanding of the 50/50 profit split with the developers? How
much are they expecting and how will these profits be used?
• How will the City of Camas be involved in this project? How will they benefit?
• There still is confusion about the type of taxes and the amount of tax infusion into our local
schools, cities, services, and libraries. What is the understanding of the commissioners
regarding the taxes to be made from this project? How do you arrive at these numbers and can
you explain them in plain language for the public?
• The public is concerned about the local retail space that remains unfilled, and this project
increasing the amount of current retail space. What will the commissioners do to get retail
space filled?
• The Public is asking what the commissioners understand about the Option Agreement. Can
they slow down the process and delay signing a lease/contract until concerns can be addressed
and questions can be answered? Can the Port “back out” of this agreement?
• The public is concerned about protecting and preserving Parkersville Landing and Marina
Park. Over 1000 signatures were obtained on petitions to do this, and the public is asking if
CCIA plans to present these to the Port. Do the commissioners plan to protect and preserve the
entire National Historical Site?
Public Comments Expressed at the Public Forum:
(This is quoted directly from the Public Forum transcript. ) George Coulter: “Yeah, my name is
George Coulter. I’m the general manager of Hambleton Lumber. Jim Hambleton sent me here
tonight to give you a message. Jim is the owner of the sawmill down there right now. Hambleton
brothers is the actual owner of the land. He is also President of that corporation. And, what he
told me to tell you was….what he wants to support is whatever the wishes of the people of
Washougal is…he supports that 100%. Thank you, and good evening.”
The following are comments quoted from the public:
• I would have preferred that if the community had come to a consensus that we wanted to
develop, the community had decided what they wanted it to look at, and then have some
possible developers come in and they bid some suggestions after we, as a community decided to
do with what’s our land, our property, our marina. It seemed like it all got backwards.
• The Port only owns, what, about half of the 65 acres. The other is privately held. We have no
voice in anyone that is privately held.
• One of the most important things that has been said here tonight is that possibly we get a
public vote, and I don’t know how that can come about, but I think that would be something to
really work toward because, speaking here tonight isn’t, well, I don’t know how it could stop the
project, but I think a public vote, I think it (the project )would be very unlikely to succeed.
• What I see is going on here is we’re talking about public land. This is land owned by the
citizens of Camas, Washougal. The development that goes on there should be done with the say
so of the citizens of Camas-Washougal. And it should benefit the citizens of Camas-Washougal
who are paying the taxes to have it done. This is your property, it’s your future, it’s your
children’s future.
• We really need to communicate that enhancing our recreational opportunities. Keep that in
focus, that is the Port’s mission statement. Their own mission statement.
• We don’t need any condominiums, that would only have a few people with a special interest
that would enjoy the view.
• I would like to know what can you do at this point, ask your body (the Port Commissioners),
what, can we possibly have this stopped and do not waste anymore time and money on…I don’t
believe a majority of the people want it.
• When this comes before council, as a zoning change, you can be assured that I will do to the
best of my abilities, make the decision that is in the best interest of the people of Washougal.
• And that’s to make an impact as a community, you need to show up at council and Port
meetings. If this crowd were to bust the doors on a consecutive basis, they would not know
what to do except heed….your…wishes.
• I don’t understand how the condos are in the mission.
• I don’t know why a totally public option wasn’t considered first, since this is public land. When
a developer gets involved and it turns into a private development and necessarily that is profit
driven. Maybe that’s what should happen, maybe it’s not, but it seems like some private, excuse
me, public options should have been considered first. That some of the access issues, parking
issues, view issues maybe could have been better considered. As far as development goes by
considering it completely public planning development process. And as far as I’ve been able to
tell, that wasn’t considered. We jumped right from start to end with the private development
concept. The second concern I have is more of a rumor like you mentioned, rumors happen. But
I’ve heard some rumors that perhaps eminent domain could be used to take away private
property and that concerns me. I could be potentially involved in that as well. And it doesn’t
seem fair to have private property taken away by a public entity to be given away to a different
private property.
• But whatever happens, it’s not so much as what is going to be built, but I think the developer
should show you how he’s gonna do it. Because this whole thing could be a piece-meal
operation.
• And the Port Commission in Camas-Washougal was originally established as a defensive
maneuver so that we would not have Port of Vancouver in our front door, and so that the
citizens of our community could have a say in what happened with the port.
• But good people sometimes make mistakes. Um, one of the mistakes that they (the
commissioners) made is not having the courtesy of coming here tonight and listening to what
people have to say.
• What I would expect the commissioners to do is to listen to public opinion, recognize they’ve
made a mistake, and correct it.
• It took them (the Port of Bellingham, city of Bellingham, citizens) three years, and they didn’t
have developers in the picture in the beginning. They had the Port of Bellingham, the City of
Bellingham, and the citizens working together as partners. That’s who started their process,
and they worked for three years before a developer even entered the picture.
• Mr. Powell (former Port Commissioner at Public Forum), when you were commissioner, was it
policy to introduce something at one meeting, and have about two weeks to discuss? He is
nodding yes. The oneness is on the commissioners, not the developers.
• What I want you to know how proud I am to see the number of people showing up out here,
and speaking and actually having a chance to control your own future and your own
government.
• I would suggest to people if they are wondering what can be done, is to continue the work
now, and I know I’m going to take part in it, and I would encourage everybody else to do so.
• I’d just like to see for future generations to come down and come down and bring their boat
and go out with their kids on a beach on the Columbia River and not take that away from us,
our community.
• And the big thing of it is, once you change that view, at that park, and the other 16 acres to
the east of Hambleton, it’s gone. You can never get it back. It’s gone, it’s memories. And you
have nothing to leave your children.
• But as I look around, I see many many wonderful gray haired citizens and I think it’s so neat
that Washougal has such a heritage here. But I think it would be really interesting to add up all
the years in this room that people have lived in Washougal, some for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years.
And that, that right there stands for so much. Culture, heritage, just experience.
• It was the first established community in the Washington territory and a significant beginning
of people, Parkersville, having a vision of what would happen and all of that is gone. All of the
park needs to be preserved (applause) because it’s a significant park. And I do want to say that
if we don’t honor the past, we’re going to sacrifice the future.
• So you have Washougal. This is the most historic spot in all of the territory for the Americans
coming through. Again, we are the most historical spot in all of the territory. I just wanted to let
you know that the work of preserving this National Historic Site will be accomplished and it will
be done because of your influence and your willing to stand. And I’ll just close with this
thought. If we forget our history, we will also as a people lose our culture.
• But to use tax payer’s money and use public property and denying the public their right to
waterways.
• There’s a select few that’s gonna make a few bucks off it, and their only there, their not for
our best interests. And 50 years down the road their going to be long gone some place else until
they can con somebody else out of their property.
• But the problematic part about that is that the Port only owns half of the proposed land at this
time. So, if they’re going to get that other land, and also get it ‘pad ready’ or whatever it is that
they’re being asked to do by the developer, that’s surely going to cost millions to the public. And
that’s going to be a significant impact on our tax rates.
• And in my experience in putting deals together, I always show the other guy how to make
money. If I couldn’t show you how to make money, you wouldn’t do business with me. It wouldn’t
be a good deal.
• What I keep hearing is that 50% of the profit is going to go to the port. And that sounds great.
The Port’s going to get more money, more money coming into the government of Camas-
Washougal. But that money does not go into better schools, police, fire, etc. What you’re going
to end up with is a better port. That money, the profits are going to go to funding the port
district. It’s not going to go to benefit the average people in Camas-Washougal.
• Trailer boaters are far less likely to use and pay for a marina slip or dry stack storage because
they like to be able to take their own boats home and clean and maintain them at home as a
hobby like a hotrod or any other man’s hobby or family’s hobby.
• Trailer boaters also like the ability to load and unload their gear at home and not have to carry
it all down to their boat. They like the ability to go to other locations such as a lake or any other
place that they might want to go on vacation. So, and one other thing, of course trailer parking
is much more affordable. Their plans with marina slips and things, those prices are gonna be
comparable to the prices on the Willamette. So, three or four or five times higher than you are
currently paying.
• I favor the access to the many.
• This plan seems gentrified in the sense, well like the condos, or a big expensive hotel. I like
the natural access and when I lived in Oregon we had a governor who did a lot to keep the coast
accessible to the people, I mean, he, and the rules, and the laws said you couldn’t build right on
the water. That they couldn’t be privately owned, that they had to be left for the public.
• What is so unique about the area of the Columbia River which is owned by the Port area,
owned by the Port of Camas-Washougal, which is actually the public, is the fact that access to
the river is so easy from the highway. It is unencumbered by railroad tracks.
• The public is extremely fortunate that the land at this point in time is owned by the public, and
is therefore can be considered as ‘commons’, which in Anglo Saxon property law is “an area of
land for use by the public”. This land was purchased by the Port with public money. In the
Shorelines Management Act of ’71, it was stated that “a development master program for
shorelines of statewide significance, preference shall be given to uses in the following order of
preference which 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest. 2.
Preserve the natural character of the shoreline, result in long-term over short-term benefit.
Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Increase public access to publicly owned
areas of the shorelines. Increase recreational opportunities for the public at shoreline. And
provide for any other element in this frame of law. And the implementation of this policy, the
public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and esthetic qualities of the natural shorelines of the
state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with the overall best interest
of the state and people generally”. Again it should be emphasized that this land is presently
publicly owned.
• Obviously, it’s much more expensive to acquire land after it’s built upon, and developed. It
would seem to me that the greatest good that can be achieved is to have this land presently
owned by the Port, by providing water related activities which is what I believe was the intent of
the Shorelines Management Act. And that does not mean developing the land, Port, residential
development which reduces availability of this precious resource to the general public.
• I’d just like to see for future generations to come down and come down and bring their boat
and go out with their kids on a beach on the Columbia River and not take that away from us,
our community.
• And the big thing of it is, once you change that view, at that park, and the other 16 acres to
the east of Hambleton, it’s gone. You can never get it back. It’s gone, it’s memories. And you
have nothing to leave your children.
• But as I look around, I see many many wonderful gray haired citizens and I think it’s so neat
that Washougal has such a heritage here. But I think it would be really interesting to add up all
the years in this room that people have lived in Washougal, some for 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years.
And that, that right there stands for so much. Culture, heritage, just experience.
Thank you to the Camas-Washougal Port Commissioners for taking the time to hear this
presentation of public questions and comments regarding the proposed waterfront development
project. The public is requesting answers to these questions, which are directed to the Port
Commissioners. During the second regular meeting from today, which is in August, Concerned
Citizens In Action will obtain from the Commissioners the answers to these public questions, as
well as their responses to the pubic comments.
Developer Backgrounds
Posted on: May 20 2007 @ 05:45 PM
By: LarryMIller
Content:
I am amazed that the background of how Rick Bowler does business has been grossly
overlooked.
In the past year, One Pacific and Rick Bowler have been sued 4 times. One lawsuit has been
filed by the Residents of Westridge Place, one of the developments mentioned in Sunday's
Columbian article.
Mr. Bowler has failed to complete that development and provide the residents their promised
security systems, landscaped walking trails, fountain areas. Please drop by and take a look at
the common areas and what was completed to what level of quality. Again, these were Bowler
"concepts" he used to entice people to buy his home in that development.
Read the minutes of Board meetings on westridgeplacehoa.com, email or call the officers of that
Board. Mr. Bowler has been difficult to deal with and has created alot of problems for the
residents there, continually violating the CC&R's.
Mark Benson is also a member of that Board as an appointtee of Mr. Bowler acts specifically at
Bowlers Direction to the detriment of the homeowners.
Mr. Bowler is someone that the public should not do business with. Please check the Clark
County Superior Court records for Rick Bowler and One Pacific Corporation, Kole Properties
and then copies of the lawsuits.
This would add additional light the public should know about Mr. Bowler and Mr. Benson.
Mr. Bowlers other projects, Two Creeks at Camas Meadows, East Grove LLC at Westridge, the
192nd Avenue station, Hotel on 192nd, and the Driving Range on First street have all turned
into financial disasters for Mr. Bowler.
Also, check out the occupancy turnover of the Troutdale shopping district. I think you will find a
project like Riverwalk is ill advised for the public.
Please investigate this information and and decide for yourself. THe public should cancell this
project with haste. The good ole boy agreements that have already been struck need to be
corrected.
Larry Miller
________________________________________
Subject: Questions & Concerns
Posted on: May 18 2007 @ 02:26 PM
By: dmtkconnolly
Content:
I will be the first to admit that I haven't really followed the Port discussions very closely until I
heard that part of the plan is to get rid of the trailer parking area. I don't understand where
people are supposed to put their trailers/trucks when they launch their boat?
The people that use that launch are not people who can/want to pay for expensive moorage. We
like having our boats at home where they are secure & not covered in river gunk.
I am all for developing our towns to bring in more jobs and to better our economy. But there
needs to be a limit. We need to keep the "small town" feel that brings people here and makes us
want to stay.
________________________________________
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
About CCIA
Our purpose is to hold
government accountable to
the public while serving the
public interest.
Our purpose is to hold
government accountable to
the public while serving the
public interest.
