Harbor-Works Cleared Again by State Auditor's Office

The city and port did not break any laws when the Port Angeles Harbor-Works Development Authority was created two years ago. The Auditor's Office made this determination last May, and they confirmed their findings again yesterday.

The audit was a result of concerns raised by Port Angeles residents Norma Turner and Shirley Nixon over the legality of Harbor-Works' formation.

Harbor-Works Being Reviewed By State Again

The State Auditor’s Office is again planning to review whether Harbor-Works was created illegally.

According to spokeswoman Mindy Chambers, the Auditor’s Office has received new information which might change their previous conclusion that had cleared the City and Port of Port Angeles of any wrongdoing.

Port Angeles residents Shirley Nixon and Norma Turner, who filed the earlier complaint about Harbor-Works, have provided the new information which has caused the State Auditor’s Office to re-examine the issue.

They’re alleging that the city and port both violated the state Open Public Meetings Act when Harbor-Works was created in May of 2008.

Harbor-Works Audit: A “Witch Hunt???”

According to a state audit, the formation of the Port Angeles Harbor-Works Public Development Authority did not go against the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and did not violate any Port Angeles laws.

Regardless of their findings, I think it was important for this audit to be conducted. There’s been a lot of suspicion and resentment (to put it mildly) regarding the creation of Harbor-Works.

Port Angeles residents Norma Turner and Shirley Nixon filed the request for the investigation. Norma Turner said: “Even though the state office thinks it was done right, we continue to respectfully disagree. When local elected officials meet with no public input . . . and in doing so have to amend their own rules, again with no public notice and no public comment, I think normal citizens know that violates reasonable expectation of public input.”

Harbor-Works board member Howie Ruddell accused certain un-named citizens (three guesses) of trying to “hijack this community project.” He also said: “Unfortunately these witch hunts are being paid for with tax payer dollars and they need to stop.”

So, when the state Auditor’s Office investigates a citizens’ complaint against a city government — a government which has a long history of steamrolling over the citizens it’s supposedly “serving” — it isn’t actually an audit. It’s a “hijacking.” A “witch hunt.”

OK, duly noted. Thank you Howie Ruddell for clarifying this.

Rayonier Mill, Harbor-Works PDA, Local Taxes, Public Input

I don’t have a firm opinion one way or the other on this; it’s a complicated contentious issue. Today’s PDN has an excellent letter to the editor that raises some important questions. The few other times I’ve reprinted a PDN letter, I’ve left out the author’s name. But the author of this letter, Norma Turner, has been active in local politics, and I’m assuming she would want her name used.

Here’s the entire letter:

The Peninsula Daily News’ series about Rayonier mill property from February 8th through 10th underscored why the Harbor-Works Public Development Authority chairman said it would take 12 to 18 months to complete “due diligence” on the site. Forbes Business Website defines due diligence as “the care a reasonable should take before entering into an agreement or a transaction with another party.”

The board approved completing the purchase and sale agreement by April 2009. (“Harbor-Works wants mill site by April. P.A. agency to use loans to buy Rayonier property,” Feb. 5th PDN.) How did eighteen months get reduced to three?

Harbor-Works is funded with local tax dollars — but spends it without customary public-purse safeguards. Every executive-level position has been filled without public advertisement, including one at $195 an hour and another at $125 an hour. Two weeks ago they decided to hire somebody who did not even apply for the position, relying instead on private conversations.

The total cost to taxpayers of acquiring the Rayonier site remains a huge unknown. Cost was one of several important issues never answered at the City Council/Port of Port Angeles meeting. PDA ownership of Rayonier’s property means a loss of at least $50,000 a year in property taxes. Responsibility for removing the pier, if it is removed, is estimated at $4 million by the State Department of Natural Resources, and the site cleanup costs cannot be determined until the extent of contamination is fully known and remedies are selected.

Rayonier’s aggregate market value is more than $3 billion. It’s 2007 annual financial report reports a “very good year,” with plans to raise stockholders’ dividend payments. Meanwhile, the state and local governments’ balance sheets are grim. Why are local tax dollars being spent on this project?