Richland City Council will discuss creating a new “Columbia Point North District” within the “Waterfront District” and allowing 100 ft. buildings in an area where issues remain with parking and the former landfill. Later they will hold a “secrets” meeting to discuss a public land sale or lease. The meeting also includes an update from the Public Facilities District Board President Steve Wiley.
Building height could reach 100 ft. near the Richland waterfront despite unresolved issues.
At their Feb. 20 meeting, the council postponed a consideration of high-rise buildings along the riverfront because of concerns that the city’s existing parking requirements could create a sea of asphalt on one of its most valuable properties.
“Our parking standards in the code are absolutely ridiculous,” Councilmember Kurt Maier said at the time.
The Richland Planning Commission had offered an alternative that included a parking garage.
Councilmember Jhoanna Jones recommended at that meeting that the council have a one-item workshop to discuss the parking issue. That workshop has been planned for December 9.
Although that problem isn’t resolved, the staff report supporting the change states, “The City has been working with a potential developer of this site, and the developer has expressed that an increase in height standards would be beneficial to their proposal.”
The planning commission, chaired by Richland City Mayor Theresa Richardson’s son, Jet Richardson, rubber-stamped the proposal at their Oct. 23 meeting.
Landfill issues remain.
In addition, nothing has been publicly disclosed about the status of the sections of the property that were once used to dump garbage. The Observer reached out to City Manager Jon Amundson and asked for an update on the garbage issue. He has not responded.
The city hired a contractor in 2023 to examine the landfill and characterize the contents. The Observer has asked city officials a number of times since then about the status of the examination and has been told that the study was still underway.
Council will hold a secrets meeting, also known as an executive session, after the public one. At least one issue is not much of a secret.
The council will hold a secrets meeting, also known as an executive session, after the public one to discuss a land sale or lease. According to state law, the meeting can be a secret if disclosure could result in a decrease in price.
In this case at least, the likely subject of the discussion is well known already. Only one person, Tim Bush, put in an offer to buy or lease the city-owned property at 24 Lawless. The council will probably discuss an acceptable price in the closed meeting.
The subject of the other item “current or potential litigation” is unknown.
Some readers have objected to the use of the word “secret” to describe an executive session. State law allows the meetings under certain circumstances.
Another reader has suggested that since it’s not a “clandestine” meeting because we are advised that it will occur, maybe it is best described as a meeting to share secrets or a secrets meeting.
According to the city code, 1.01.030 Executive sessions. “Items discussed in executive session, because of the confidential nature, will not be disclosed in any manner to member of the media or discussed with any person other than councilmembers or persons in attendance at executive session.
Violation of this section will be discussed at the next regular meeting of the council and shall subject any councilmember found to be in violation to potential censure by the city council as a whole.”
Public Facilities District Board President will give an “update.”
Earlier in the year the board reported that they planned to call for a special election to consider funding for a new performing arts center and improvements to the Reach Museum. The council packet includes no details about the presentation.
Perhaps voters will interpret “… confidential nature, will not be disclosed in any manner” as synonymous with “secret” or “clandestine.”
Thank you for tracking how these public servants are serving the public interest and/or their own interests.
Hi Eric, I appreciate your comment. Maybe it isn’t a secret meeting but a meeting to share secrets. Although I never said it was clandestine. Breaking the oath of secrecy is probably the only ethics rule the council would enforce. Thank you for reading the Observer. Randy
And the corruption goes on and on
Excited about the possibility of a dedicated Performing Arts Center at Columbia Park West. Let’s get this done!
Randy,
I am deeply disappointed with the misleading nature of the articles you’ve been publishing, which consistently suggest that the City Council’s use of Executive Sessions, as permitted by state law, is somehow improper. Your framing of these sessions seems designed to cast doubt on their legitimacy, leading some of your readers to jump to conclusions about corruption and self-interest.
To set the record straight, I encourage you to review the information provided by the Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) on the proper use of Executive Sessions, which you can find here: MRSC Executive Session Basics.
https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/public-meetings/executive-sessions/executive-session-basics
While the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) does not explicitly define “executive session,” it is understood to refer to a portion of a public meeting that is closed to the public, and it is governed by specific legal parameters. According to RCW 42.30.110, a governing body is only allowed to go into Executive Session for particular reasons, including:
– The purchase or sale of land
– Claims (or potential claims) against the agency for property damage or other issues
– The qualifications of potential appointees to fill elected or appointed positions
– Complaints or charges against public officials or employees
It’s important to note that no final action can be taken during an Executive Session. However, in certain situations—such as discussions around property sales or potential lawsuits—preliminary guidance may be needed, which could involve individual council members expressing their views to inform future decisions. This is entirely within the law and does not constitute final action, which must always occur in an open meeting, as required by RCW 42.30.060(2).
Your portrayal of these sessions risks distorting their legitimate purpose, and I strongly urge you to reconsider how you present these important legal processes in your reporting. We owe it to the public to ensure they are fully informed, not misled.
Hi Edward, I appreciate your comment. My article links to the state law that allows the “executive sessions.” Nowhere do I say that they are illegal. Richland City Code outlines penalties for anyone divulging matters that were discussed in the meetings. Therefore, I believe it is accurate to refer to matters discussed in the sessions as “secret.” Thank you for reading the Observer. Randy