After representatives from the Centralia City Council, Port of Centralia and Board of Lewis County Commissioners repeatedly called for collaboration between the three jurisdictions over the past month, mediation appears to be moving forward.
The City of Centralia agreed Tuesday to approve a response to the county’s proposal to meet with representatives from the county and the port as part of the mediation process. The mediation aims to resolve the city’s concerns with the potential of rapid growth of warehouses and distribution centers within the local area, and to focus upon reaching an agreement regarding such buildings on properties solely within the urban growth area.
Those concerns prompted the city council to initiate a six-month moratorium limiting the size of warehouses and distribution centers to below 250,000 square feet, an emergency move that caught both the county and the port by surprise.
The port has not yet had a chance to publicly discuss the county’s proposal, and mediation was not listed on the commission’s Wednesday afternoon agenda as of Wednesday morning.
The county offered to host the mediation process, as well as be involved in it, while hiring a third-party mediator that the three jurisdictions would agree upon to facilitate the parties’ decision-making process. Recommendations from the mediator would be brought back to the respective boards, and once final approval is given, the agreement would become binding.
Centralia City Manager Michael Thomas said the county left its proposal “intentionally vague” to allow more open and frank discussions between the parties. Some councilors took minor issue with the county requesting that an elected official from each party represent their respective organizations as the voting member. Instead, the council voted to authorize Thomas to renegotiate and request that the voting member be the city manager, county manager and executive director. However, councilors expressed that this disagreement is not a hill they would die upon and that they would oblige with the county’s request if renegotiation on that notion fails.
According to the draft mediation agreement, drafted by the county, there is no guaranteed outcome with the mediation. However, the desired outcomes are:
• Regulatory implementation of the mediated settlement. Regulatory implementation may include Lewis County code amendments, City of Centralia code amendments and/or a development agreement or interlocal agreement between the parties.
• Revocation of City of Centralia Ordinance 2569 enacting a temporary moratorium on new warehouse distribution centers larger than 250,000 square feet.
In the city’s revisions, they changed the second bullet point to state the following: “Evaluation of City of Centralia Ordinance 2569 enacting a temporary moratorium on new warehouse distribution centers larger than 250,000 square feet, with the potential for modification or revocation only upon reaching agreement on enforceable infrastructure solutions, focusing upon Harrison Avenue, particularly traffic mitigation measures, with any revocation only applicable within the urban growth area.”
No party can be compelled to reach an agreement, the draft document states. The mediation process and all information, offers or statements made during mediation are confidential. The parties shall not share any information during the mediation process with any outside party and shall not use information in future litigation or arbitration, subject to any legal requirements. The document states that, while the mediation process itself is not binding, any final, written and signed settlement agreement reached during mediation is legally binding and enforceable.
If all parties opt into mediation, they shall agree to select a mediator by Nov. 3. Lewis County provided a list of websites to select a mediator.
The city requested in its revisions that all votes made within mediation be unanimous for approval, as councilors stated that a 2-1 vote on a matter nullifies the purpose of the mediation but a unanimous vote equals the playing field. Further, it asked that the parties agree that traffic, road capacity and intersection performance along Harrison Avenue must be addressed as part of any settlement.
In the “Roles & Responsibilities” section of the agreement, the county requested the following members of each party be involved in the mediation process:
• One elected official to be the voting member and speak for their organization
• City manager, county manager, port executive director as a delegated voting member to speak for their organization if the elected official is not in attendance
• Legal counsel
• Community development director (applies only to the city and the county)
• Public works director (applies only to the city and the county)
• The port may also have two additional staff members in attendance.
In the City of Centralia’s revision that it sent back to the county, it not only asked for an appointed official to be the voting member but that the county and city be notified and agree to the two port staff members chosen before the mediation begins. Thomas told the council that the voting member has been a sticking point with the county and that the county emphasized its desire for an elected official to represent their jurisdiction and have voting authority.
The mediation process will be flexible and may adapt to meet the needs of the parties, according to the draft document. The parties would agree to begin mediation within 30 days following selection of the mediator. Upon starting mediation, the parties would agree to meet at least once per month with the intention of reaching a settlement within four months. However, the city requested an extension to six months.
Port Commissioner Kyle Markstrom spoke virtually during the Centralia council meeting and demonstrated his support for the mediation process, calling it a “great step forward toward our future for all three entities to work through some of these complicated issues.” Port Commissioner Peter Lahmann also provided comment and said he is not “necessarily opposed to mediation” but he wants to see collaboration between the parties and for them to be on the same page.
Should the county turn down the city’s request to delegate voting authority to an appointed official rather than an elected official, the city voted for Councilor Mark Westley to take the role of the elected voting member. Westley was one of the councilors who proposed giving voting power to non-elected officials.
“If one of the electeds are representing us, we’re only allowed to talk to two other persons. If Mike [Thomas] is representing us and he asks questions, he can shoot out an email and he can collect information or run things by the collective group without violating any laws or the Open Public Meetings Act,” Westley said.
Thomas responded and said that anything decided in mediation would come back before the council, county commission and port commission anyhow. Within the mediation process itself, the voting member would be allowed to have an internal agreement with the members of its own party, such as the department leaders and legal counsel, before they would make a vote in the mediation process.
