Above: Members of the Port of Olympia citizen advisory committee met with port commissioners on February 17 to discuss their 2015 work plan.
By
Janine Unsoeld
Port of Olympia commissioners George Barner and Bill McGregor met with
the port’s 14 member citizen advisory committee on Tuesday, February 17 to
discuss committee’s 2015 work plan.
The committee has five new members who are starting three year terms. Out of seven who applied, five new members were chosen by
port executive director Ed Galligan, Commissioner McGregor, and committee chair John
Hurley, based on a number of criteria.
At a November 24, 2014 commissioner meeting, the
last meeting port commissioner Sue Gunn attended due to health issues, Gunn stated that she would like to
change how the members are selected so that it is in open session with all
three commissioners.
Committee members were asked to take on four tasks
for the year: research transparency issues, refine a protocol for the naming
of port facilities, help develop the port’s vision statement, and conduct a
self-evaluation of their work as a committee.
Tasks for the committee are created and assigned to
the Port's citizen advisory committee by the commissioners. It was made clear that
the group had to accept the tasks, although many clearly had no enthusiasm to
revisit protocols for naming port facilities, since they did a thorough review
of the subject last year. McGregor wanted the group to essentially say to the commissioners, “do it
or don’t it.”
Transparency
The commissioners said it would be of value to the
port to have the committee investigate and report back on the issue of
transparency.
Questions the commissioners asked the committee to
explore are: What is an acceptable definition of transparency in government and,
in particular, the Port of Olympia? What has the Port done to improve
transparency over the past few years and what additional measures can the port
do to improve transparency? What is it that citizens want to see improved as it
relates to Port transparency? What is the overall feeling of citizens as it
relates to transparency?
Regarding this last question, commissioners stated
that a public hearing may be required by the committee as part of their
information gathering effort.
Among other requests, the commissioners asked the
committee to comment on the commission’s meetings and work sessions in terms of
meeting frequency, time of day, length of meeting and content.
A detailed scope of work asks that the group look at
commission meeting materials, compare the Port of Olympia to at least three
other regional ports and at least two other local jurisdictions.
The group has a deadline for this task of September
2015.
Naming
Protocols
Members were not keen on revisiting a task to
examine how the port would go about naming facilities after individuals if so
desired. The committee reported back to the commission and gave several
recommendations in a detailed 2014 report, and committee member Clydia
Cuykendall said that it was not a good use of the group’s time to revisit the
issue. She noted that the port has received only one naming request in the past 10
years. The deadline for this task is June 2015.
Vision
Statement
The commissioners and port staff will be working on
the development of a vision statement as part of a two day strategic planning retreat
currently scheduled for the end of March.
The committee was asked to choose from one of the sample
vision statements that will be provided to them by the commissioners. If none
of the sample vision statements are preferred, they are to suggest language
changes. A deadline for this is to be determined.
Committee
Self-Evaluation
The group is tasked with conducting a
self-evaluation on the use of a citizen advisory committee. The group must
compare and contrast its formation and work with at least four regional ports
and at least three local jurisdictions and quasi-governmental entities. The
deadline for this task is September 2015.
Committee members divided themselves up between committees.
New members asked questions from whether or not the airport or the port really
makes any money, to the status of the Mazama pocket gophers at the airport property.
Cuykendall wondered why the committee wasn’t included
to comment on the Tumwater Real Estate Master Plan, and what the difference was
between their past work, and the work of the new port advisory committee for the
port’s properties in New Market.
Port
of Olympia New Market Industrial Campus and Tumwater Town Center Real Estate
Development Master Plan
This latest study is a master plan being coordinated
by the Thurston Regional Planning Commission. The Port of Olympia owns over 500
acres of real estate in Tumwater, excluding the Olympia Regional Airport. The
property may be developed for commercial, industrial or other uses. In response
to questions from committee members, port executive director Ed Galligan
admitted that the gophers, now listed as a threatened species by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, present a serious impediment to growth on the
property.
The port’s master plan group will have a public
workshop about the development of this plan on Thursday, March 5, 6:00 p.m. – 8
p.m. at the Comfort Inn Conference Center, 1620 74th Avenue SW,
Tumwater.
For
more information about the New Market Master Plan, go to www.trpc.org/PortofOlympiaProject.
For
more information about the Port of Olympia, go to www.portolympia.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment