Advocacy group vague on plan, but looking to change port policy
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.
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."
