Commissioners' choice: Protect MOU at all costs

The Clark County Commissioners threw away a golden opportunity this week to deep-six once and for all their much maligned Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

Absolved by a regional growth board of any obligation -- real or imagined -- to honor the MOU, our leaders opted instead to appeal the ruling. (See "County to appeal casino deal ruling" in The Columbian.)

Handed down by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the ruling declared that the MOU was negotiated and approved without the state- and county-required public participation, and gave the county six months to fix that.

Commissioner Steve Stuart identified in The Columbian three possible courses for the county: pursue a new agreement involving the public, let the document die or appeal the ruling.

The first two options are certainly preferable. If the document were left for dead, it would send a message to federal decision-makers that the county is not a casino proponent. If county leaders and the public worked together to produce a new document with the tribe, we might get something that would actually protect the county.

Consider the following:

1. The county was spooked into signing this MOU in 2004, before the casino developers had publicly defined the nature and scope of their project. (See "Secrets of the MOU" on our Web site)

2. Because the county signed the MOU prematurely, not knowing what the tribe had in mind, it failed to negotiate an agreement that would adequately protect the county given the size of the proposed development and its location. Among the MOU's shortcomings:

• Property tax. The tribe agrees to pay "for revenue lost resulting from the removal of the Clark County Site from the tax rolls." That appears to be approximately $10,000 a year, according to an analysis by the economic consulting firm ECONorthwest.
• Problem gambling mitigation. The tribe agrees to pay $50,000 a year. A similar agreement in Wisconsin promises $150,000 a year. Clark County has a population 2½ times larger than that county.
• Potential expansion. The MOU does not address the possibility that, if the Cowlitz Tribe gets its requested land taken into trust, it could continue to expand its holdings -- taking more and more land off the county's tax rolls.
• Compensation. An agreement structured like the one in Wisconsin would bring in nearly $29 million a year to local governments and charities. Clark County's would bring in only $5 million to $7.5 million, according to ECONorthwest's analysis.

3. Two of the three commissioners who signed the MOU now regret it and joined CARS' Steering Committee. The third, Betty Sue Morris, remains on the board, where by all accounts she is the casino's primary advocate.

4. Without the MOU, the tribe's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is in serious jeopardy. The EIS mentions the MOU nearly 150 times. If the MOU goes away, it means serious consequences for the EIS.

5. When the county signed the MOU, it attached the following disclaimer:

"Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding should be construed as evidencing county support for or endorsement of the Tribe's trust application. The Board has concerns that the trust application, if federally-approved, would permit uses on this rural and resource land which otherwise would not be allowed under the County's comprehensive land use plan, would permit gaming, which is otherwise prohibited in unincorporated Clark County, and could potentially adversely affect existing business."

In our view those are real concerns and they exist today.

Support for the MOU is support for the casino. Why are the commissioners fighting so hard to resurrect this document? And why would they oppose giving the public a voice in an issue that could affect life in our county for many decades to come?

MOU declared invalid

The proposed Cowlitz casino project was dealt another blow Tuesday when the tribe's agreement with Clark County was declared invalid.

The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe in March 2004.

The Board of County Commissioners signed the MOU before the tribe revealed its plan to apply for an initial reservation and develop a mega-casino and resort near the La Center exit on Interstate 5. The tribe has since used the MOU to bolster its application to put lands into trust and has relied on it as a critical part of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The 2006 Draft EIS mentions the MOU more than 150 times in an attempt to demonstrate that the agreement would prevent or mitigate negative impacts. However, because the county signed before knowing the tribe's plan for the site, it failed to get a deal that would reasonably help offset the negative impacts of what could become the largest casino-resort on the West Coast.

The MOU was appealed in June 2004 by a property owner adjacent to the proposed casino site and owners of the La Center cardrooms. The case traveled through Superior Court to Appeals Court, which declared the MOU a "de facto amendment" to the county's Comprehensive Plan and sent it back to the Hearings Board, which has given the county until Dec. 14 to bring the MOU into compliance.

CARS continues to believe there should be no agreement between the tribe and the county. This Memorandum of Mis-Understanding should be invalidated for all time.

>>Read the story in The Columbian.

For more stories and information, see our Web site.

HURRAY FOR LA CENTER!

La Center's City Council sent a strong message May 23 when it unanimously passed a resolution stating the city's opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino.

This is an extremely important development because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials and La Center is the city closest to the proposed development.

Like the resolution passed by the Vancouver City Council earlier this month, La Center's voices frustration at having its concerns ignored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and threatens legal action if its concerns are not addressed.

The La Center resolution mentions, among other issues, that the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately address the proposed casino's impacts on the city's socioeconomic situation, traffic, schools and law enforcement. It also expresses the city's concern regarding the possibility that the tribe would expand the casino and its land holdings in the future.

The City Council also voted to set aside money to send members Bob Smith and Dale Smith to Washington, D.C., to personally deliver the resolution to the Department of the Interior.


>>Read about the decision.

>>Read the resolution.

For more stories and information, see our Web site.

BAIRD REQUESTS COMMENT PERIOD

Responding to concerns raised by Citizens Against Reservation Shopping and others, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) has asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to release the Business Plan included in the Cowlitz Tribe's preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 30-day public comment period.

The Business Plan and Unmet Needs Statement, part of the Cowlitz Tribe's application for a mega-casino and resort proposed for Clark County, were to have been part of a revised trust land application filed on behalf of the tribe last summer. Instead they appeared, without notice, as an appendix to the preliminary Final EIS when it was released in March by BIA to cooperating agencies.

In a letter dated May 30, Rep. Baird wrote, "I can understand the concerns of some members of the community and appreciate their desire to thoroughly evaluate all elements of the application before a final decision on the Cowlitz Tribe's application is made."

>>Read Rep. Baird's letter.

>>Read about CARS' concerns regarding the Business Plan.

>>See CARS' May 14 news release.

>>Read the article in The Columbian.

For more stories and information, see our Web site.