||| FROM LEITH TEMPLIN |||
I attended the last Orcas Port Commissioners meeting and came away being disappointed. I learned from Chair, Mia Kartiganer, that they received CARES Act Funding because “someone pushed the paperwork in front of me and I sign it because it was free money.” This is not free; it is taxpayers’ money. The Port had no reason to ask for this money. Then Mia told me that their attorney said they “have” to salary all commissioners $285 a month because their budget is now over $1M, so added to their $128 gives them $413 a month per commissioner. This makes them the highest paid commission ever in our county. They only manage a small airport, no marina nothing else.
I do feel citizens do need to be recognized for their hard work and sometimes compensation happens, but this is absurd. Most commissions receive $120 per meeting per person or less and some decline altogether.
I am chair of EPRC, dedicate hours a month, plus a 3-hour public meeting as a public service and as SJC Cemetery Commissioner, I receive a $90 meeting stipend. Fire Commissioners receive $120 stipend. Working hours every week plus public meetings. OPALCO directors must study/know their intimidating board book, attend educational power meetings, become board certified and attend 5–6-hour board meetings for $200 per meeting. The Planning Commission (meetings, are 6-8 hours which take hours of prep and studying the SJC Comprehensive plan and planning documents) plus some fifty other community service boards/commissions that receive no compensation at all.
The lack of forethought of this board is disappointing.
I think it is a huge disservice to this community to misinform them about the facts. We appreciated your comments during our meeting and responded honestly at the time and Commissioner Robert Hamilton followed that up in further detail after you sent the airport manager a copy of your concerns to be included in the record.
Representative Larsen called us (I believe Tony Simpson and I were on that call) to inform us that he had secured CARES Act money for the Port of Orcas. The FAA later sent us a pre-populated “application” to sign. We accepted the windfall at a precarious time when we didn’t yet know what duration or full financial impact of COVID would be for the airport or our community. We were never required to show need and unlike other CARES Act recipients like private businesses, there were fewer stipulations other than that we can only use that money for Operations and Maintenance at the airport. The most beneficial aspect of this has been our ability to set aside our property tax revenue into a separate column. Property taxes are our only source of revenue that we are allowed to spend outside of the airport. Meaning that we may now begin investing our homegrown revenue back into our community in ways that help with economic development and most recently included is a nationwide port movement towards creating workforce housing. We will gladly accept any federal money that is offered or we qualify for in the interest of our community.
As to our stipend(s), our attorneys informed us, along with multiple state ports, that we were not in compliance with state standards for commissioner pay.
We didn’t vote to give ourselves raises but rather resolved to set in motion an automatic adherence to state standards in perpetuity. Thus eliminating the awkward and questionable task of future commissions and ourselves having to go through this. Each of us has the option of declining any or all of the stipend. And yes, with revenue over a million dollars each year at present, there is a salary included. Again, we can decline to accept it. But I personally don’t believe it is for me to say who should or shouldn’t do so.
I’m pretty sure I asked the editor of Orcasonion to check out the candidates for the port before the election. I mentioned thievery. Got nothing back. So….here we are. Getting robbed. So why does the port need the home and hangar added to the property? Why do the commissioners need so much money? Hmmmm?
RR Davis- What is your beef? Kartinganer has addressed your issues. That elected Boards get paid is a thing. OPALCO members get both a stipend and health insurance. Many public servants opt to donate their stipends to local nonprofits. No robbery here,
I cannot speak of stipends as it seems there are different rules for Districts when trying to compare Ports. verses other institutions, but I hope if theres going to be an acquisition of private properties that there’s good long range planning on best use of said properties.. it’s not just (an opportunity) but Political Capital… if the community doesn’t understand the why, it could result in a significant loss of trust.. which dollars can’t purchase back.
The opportunity is always to Protect and Serve, I’m sure this board is contemplating the best solution for their constituents.
As a long-serving (over many terms of office) member of the EPRC…and someone who was never compensated a penny for the many hours spent, along with others, grappling with the County (and the public) over issues relating to planning for Eastsound’s future, I can empathize with the thrust of Leith’s Letter to The Orcasonian.
At the same time, I appreciate the clarity that Mia’s explanation gives to the Port’s actions, particularly those governed by WA State laws.
As for the numerous citizen boards and committees in San Juan County whose members serve without compensation, I hope the old adage that “free advice is worth what you pay for it” is not applicable…I do not believe it is a reflection of their value to the community at large.
Since my arrival 35 years ago, I’ve always believed that the extraordinary richness of island culture was due to the generous contributions of time, energy, and life experience that so many islanders make thru service on local boards and committees.
Is there an official statement of why the Port feels the need to purchase an expensive residence and hangar?
What need or authority is there for the Port to use Port district taxes outside the Port’s only facility? “Investing our homegrown revenue back into our community in ways that help with economic development and . . .creating workforce housing” sounds great, but we already have taxpayer-supported government entities charged with economic development, and the “workforce housing” would be for Port employees. How many employees does the Port have?
Peg…you ask, “Is there an official statement of why the Port feels the need to purchase an expensive residence and hangar?”
I believe there is, but I’ll let the Port spell it out…I also believe, but may be wrong, that this property acquisition will be 90% paid for with FAA funding pursuant to flight safety considerations.
First I want to thank you all for your comments and questions.
Peg, the Vierthaler property was offered and we are pursuing it because it would allow us to taxi to the NW corner of the port property. We have a wait list for hangars that don’t yet exist. The FAA wants us to prioritize that. Fred is correct, the FAA will cover 90% of the cost of the property. We will ask the Department of Transportation to help/split the remaining 10%. We had resolved to build and own future hangars but now don’t believe that is a cost effective use of port money (not something the FAA contributes to). We will discuss rescinding the resolution and making the property available to leaseholders to build hangars.
We would like to explore the viability of moving the Vierthaler home to another location, surplussed for a bid open to the public (maybe an OPAL home?). I hope it is also feasible to relocate the hangar.
We moved up our regular monthly meeting to this coming Monday December 20. You can always find the agenda and link to our zoom meetings at portoforcas.com
All are welcome and we always set aside time for public access. Please join us this month as we thank Pierrette Guimond for her service to the port and this community. She will be missed on the board but hopefully not absent.
If I have overlooked anything or there are further questions mia@portoforcas.com
Adding a few more comments from another one of your Port commissioners.
First, concerning commissioner stipends, the Commissioners did not, in any way, ask for an increase. Personally, when I first joined the Commissioner, I didn’t know that there was any stipend at all. The recent change came about because we realized that we were not meeting the law. And when we asked what the legal standard was, our lawyer discovered, although it was convoluted, that we were not legally doing what we were supposed to be doing. All the Commission then did was to accept the standard as defined by the State. To do otherwise might open the Port up to a legal liability.
Any commissioner may decline the stipend as some have and do. Making it the policy of the Port to use the State standard is a matter of ethics. It is important to understand, as we did, that by using the State standard we are taking the matter of pay and pay raises out of our own hands. Elected officials have no business deciding their own pay, other than by rejecting it personally as they may always do.
Community leadership should not be restricted to only wealthy and retired folks. If any person working on a committee or board feels that it would help them live, and indeed live on a very expensive Orcas Island, by accepting stipends, then we have no business judging them. By accepting the State standard, we are allowing a broader range of citizens to participate in leadership.
Second, concerning the Cares Act funds, while we did not ask for it, we felt that it is was in the best interests of the Port owners, the taxpayers, to do so. Because of the Care Act we then voted to decrease the amount of taxes we would accept from local taxes for 2021. I will never apologize for reducing local taxes.
Anyone is welcome to contact me at robert@portoforcas.com if you have comments or suggestions.
-Robert