PDA

View Full Version : Vancouver Port Commission sets Feb. 12 meeting


Chief
02-07-2008, 09:04 PM
VANCOUVER, Wash. – Three action items are on the agenda for the February 12 meeting of the Vancouver Port Commission.

Action items that will be considered by Port Commissioners Brian Wolfe, Nancy Baker and Jerry Oliver include:

Easement & Access

The Commission will be asked to approve a revised easement and access agreement so that the Port of Portland can install a noise monitoring system on the Port of Vancouver’s property.

On August 14, 2007, the commission approved an agreement with the Port of Portland for the system, which will assess the impacts of aircraft noise, and to help planners design measures to address the noise concerns.

Changes to the agreement were negotiated between the two ports when conflicts with a lease with Columbia Waterfront LLC were noticed, and the location for the Noise Monitoring System was moved to a location next to the Columbia Shores Executive Suites. The term of the Easement and Access Agreement is 10 years, unless both parties agree to extend, or to terminate, the easement. There is no income to the Port of Vancouver in this agreement.

Supplemental Savings Plan

In January of 2001, the Port of Vancouver established a Money Purchase Pension Plan and Trust, known as the Port of Vancouver 401(a) Supplemental Savings Plan. In order to keep the plan in compliance with recent tax law changes, the commission must approve an amendment that applies to the definition of wages paid after termination to include unused vacation, sick, or paid time off that would have been paid to employees had they still been employed.

This action item recommends that the commission approve Resolution No. 4-2008 to adopt amendment No. 5 to the Port of Vancouver 401(a) Supplemental Savings Plan.

Purchase of Crushed Concrete from Evergreen Aluminum Demolition

Port staff will ask commissioners to authorize Executive Director Larry Paulson to sign a purchase agreement to buy crushed concrete from the demolition at the Evergreen Aluminum facility at a unit price of $5.50 per ton. The total purchase amount would not exceed $714,120 including Washington State sales tax without further review and approval by the Board of Commissioners.

Through analysis done by the port, the following has been determined:

The material is durable and suitable for use as structural fill or surfacing. It has similar utility to crushed rock. Laboratory testing of the material was performed by Geotechnical Resources, Inc.
The $5.50 per ton unit price is reasonable and the offer is at or below the value expected on the free market.
This material is a valuable commodity to the Port of Vancouver and would allow surfacing of approximately 70 acres with an 8-inch thick layer of compacted material. This would allow construction of additional lay down space at the Alcoa/Evergreen site in the near term.
We contacted crushed rock suppliers and understand that the cost for an equivalent crushed rock product would be approximately $14 per ton, assuming delivery from the rock pit to the Evergreen/Alcoa site.

Additional agenda items

In addition to the action items the commissioners will also cover unfinished business including the commission’s monthly review of the Port Contracts Log, and a recommendation from staff regarding the VEBA account, which is a benefit for port employees.

Under new business, the commission is expected to assign Oliver to the Regional Transportation Council’s High Capacity Transit Task Force, filling a slot vacated by Arch Miller.

The Vancouver Port Commission meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m., in the Commission Room at port headquarters on Lower River Road in Vancouver, and will be televised live on CVTV, and will be streamed live on www.cvtv.org.

About the Port of Vancouver USA

The Port of Vancouver USA is recognized as one of the leading ports on the U.S. West Coast, and within the global marketplace, because of its efficiencies in handling cargo, its modern facilities and a dependable labor force. The port also has easy access to intermodal transportation networks including the Columbia River, Interstate 5, Interstate 84 and the U.S. mainline rail system.

– POV –

=======================

Nelson Holmberg

Communications Manager

Port of Vancouver USA

3103 NW Lower River Road

Vancouver, WA 98660

360-992-1107 - direct

360-518-2553 - mobile

nholmberg@portvanusa.com

Chief
02-11-2008, 08:56 PM
bttt...

INCOMING!!!

:mad:

Waterbuffalo
02-11-2008, 10:26 PM
Do you think he might be interested in building Sharon Nessets dream of no dreams water under the bridge? :-D

Chief
02-12-2008, 11:46 AM
Here are the remarks I delivered to day to the Commissioners of the Port of Vancouver. Please catch the replay on CVTV to see how I did...


My name is Bob Koski, and I live at 1807 SE Briarwood Drive in Vancouver. I am a resident of the Port District, and I run the website www.clarkblog.org .

It's almost the middle of February and we are nearly halfway into the first 100 days of Commissioner Jerry Oliver’s term at the Port of Vancouver, and we have yet to hear the details about two very important promises he made....things that Candidate Jerry Oliver ran his campaign against former Commissioner Arch Miller with, and won.

During the run up of the petition drive against the IDD Levy, and during his campaign for Port Commissioner nearly all of last year, Candidate Jerry Oliver told us repeatedly that not only did we not need the IDD Levy, we did not need the existing Port Levy Tax either. (Last year the existing Port levy netted the Port of Vancouver around $9 Million in tax revenue.)

I think it is time that we hear Commissioner Jerry Oliver's detailed plan for how he is going to do away with the existing "outrageous" Port tax since that was one of the central themes of his Campaign.

In addition, Commissioner Oliver ran for office promising that he was going to find ways to open new “Industrial Parks” throughout Clark County.

I think it is time that we hear Commissioner Oliver’s detailed strategery for how he is going to open up that new industrial capacity; in particular how he intends to replace the family wage jobs, and the development the IDD Levy would have enabled the Port to do on the property it already has.

Today, Commissioner Jerry Oliver is to be considered to represent the Port of Vancouver on RTC's High Capacity Transit Task Force, In my view, Commissioner Oliver has not distinguished himself in the short time he has been in office here at the Port, to be worthy of consideration for that important position. Transportation and Transit are the biggest issues facing Clark County right now, and I want someone on that Task Force who is qualified to represent my interests as a taxpayer. Commissioner Jerry Oliver is simply not qualified for that position in my view, and we can ill afford an unqualified person to pass judgement on the issues facing RTC and that Task Force.

I believe Commissioner Oliver needs to come through on the campaign promises he made here at the Port before he takes on any additional responsibilities.

I would urge the Port Commissioners to hold this decision in abeyance, and consider whether Commissioner Oliver is the right choice for this important Task Force. If neither Commissioners Wolfe or Baker are comfortable taking this responsibility on, then the Commission should consider allowing one of the Senior Staff to represent the Commission, and avoid the embarrassment of sending a representative who is neither ready nor qualified to address the issues at hand.

Chief
02-12-2008, 11:57 AM
There were no particularly big doings at the Port of Vancouver today, except for the discussion of Commissioner Jerry Oliver's suitability to be on the RTC High Capacity Transit Task Force. Comissioner Wolfe appreciated not only my comments this morning, but complimented me on my delivery as well.

Comissioner Oliver told me that he did not participate in the current budget session, but that when the new budget negotiations for the 2009 Budget start up in November, I should "stay tuned" to hear what he has to say then.

Commissioner Wolfe reminded Commissioner Oliver that the Port's budget process starts in August, and that he will have a chance to talk with staff about his ideas then.

Commissioner Oliver also said that he is working on those other Industrial areas in the County, and that I should "stay tuned" to hear more on that later as well.

Commissioner Wolfe asked Commissioner Oliver directly if there was anything in his resume that would qualify him to be on the HCTTF, and Oliver admitted that there was not. However, the Commissioners felt comfortable appointing him to the Task Force none the less.

I feel satisfied that I presented my arguments, and that they were duly considered. I had the opportunity to talk to Commissioner Oliver after the regular meeting, and he told me he appreciated citizens like myself holding his feet to the fire.

Pne thing is certain, I will "stay tuned" to hear Commissioner Oliver's budgetary plans for this year.

Waterbuffalo
02-12-2008, 10:12 PM
I'd like to note my concerns here for the subject.

With me now following the C-tran board and possibly the RTC in the future, I also personally do not feel this person is even routinely qualified to represent the Port or me as a citizen on this board.

IF Jerry votes no on every vote that comes across his for any of the next high capacity transit options that were presented this evening in front of the c-tran board that were not related to the Columbia River Crossing, its going to prove he does not have the vision to what this community needs into the far future and how one is going to pay for all of this.

There is no heck of a way that we're going to see lower taxes from any of the projects that have been presented and future C-tran projects that were proposed to help eleviate some of the congestion in Clark County.

He is supposed to be representing my views on the Port of Vancouver and also as a representative of our community, he will be asked to look into the future to pay for projects that will "Raise" taxes in our community to pay for needed improvements.

If you have been watching our discussions and what I saw tonight, the need to build more infrastructure and to move this community forward is going to mean that some of our community members may have to move into some thing that is more affordable to their economic situation than what they are currently able to afford.

I do not believe in cost shifting one's population of economic burden on to the rest of the rate payers or users just for single users benefit. That means that I don't totally believe that seniors or disabled should get totally free passes to what is need to make our community viable for the needs of the citizenry.

Now some people may not agree with these statements, thoughts or ideas, so I would love to hear more from our Un-regulars about how they feel if the City, County, or State raises the sales or some other local portion to pay for all of these road improvements. Nothing is going to come for free, so I think we need to suck up and find ways to pay for things.

Chief
02-13-2008, 05:54 AM
If you have been watching our discussions and what I saw tonight, the need to build more infrastructure and to move this community forward is going to mean that some of our community members may have to move into some thing that is more affordable to their economic situation than what they are currently able to afford.

I do not believe in cost shifting one's population of economic burden on to the rest of the rate payers or users just for single users benefit. That means that I don't totally believe that seniors or disabled should get totally free passes to what is need to make our community viable for the needs of the citizenry.

Now some people may not agree with these statements, thoughts or ideas, so I would love to hear more from our Un-regulars about how they feel if the City, County, or State raises the sales or some other local portion to pay for all of these road improvements. Nothing is going to come for free, so I think we need to suck up and find ways to pay for things.


Are you somehow suggesting that Seniors need to suck it up, pay their ever incrasing Property Tax load, or move??

The fact is that there are only so many ways to raisre money in the State, and 70% of what the State gets right now comes from Residential Property Taxes.

Homeowners do need tax relief, which is why there is a Homestead Exemption being considered in Olympia this session. It would make the first $50,000 - $100,000 of a home's value tax exempt, and would cut taxes in a big way. It also cuts into revenues, and that means something will increase somewhere else.

I think the fairest thing to do is introduce a reasonable personal income tax, and significantly cut both the Property Tax and the Sales Tax. It would provide more stable funding, and would make sure everyone is paying a fair share for the things we really need.