Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park - Status Update

Admiralty Audubon Program for November: Kah Tai Status Update

The public is invited Thursday, 17 November at 7 p.m.
Port Townsend Community Center, Lawrence and Tyler

Following the recommendation of the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office on 7 September, the National Park Service concurred on 27 September that all 78.5 acres included in the original Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park boundary are protected in perpetuity.

Historic records were used to demonstrate to officials at City, State and Federal levels that the original intent of the Park was clear. Many of those documents came from public records requests to government offices at all levels and from long hours of internet searching of government records available online. Where government records needed supplementation, seven boxes of citizen archives provided critical details. The archives of the Friends of Kah Tai were stored in attics, under beds, in basements and closets of numerous Friends in their 30+ years of existence, just waiting to finally tell their story.

Rick Jahnke will discuss how the NPS ruling affects Kah Tai and the citizens of Port Townsend.

just a reminder

curiouser and curiouser

Today we have another presentation of some target-rich text in the Port's lawsuit.

"4.4 Plaintiff Port first learned of the existence of the claim of interest in the United States in the Subject Property on or after 2008, when the defendants state Recreation and Conservation Office and defendant the US National Park Service and others communicated the United State's intent to encumber the Subject Property via recordation of a re-created Map purporting to depict a US Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 USC section 4601-4 - 4601-11) section 6(f) grant-based use restrictions would encumber the Port's property and restrict it to "park" purposes."

[4.5 and 4.6 address RCO recommendation and NPS ruling in September 2011]

"4.7 Prior to such time, and no sooner than 2008, Plaintiff Port had no reason to know of the claim of interest of the United States or its agencies in the Subject Property, and in fact the City and state agency RCO had disavowed in writing any continuing encumbrance on the Port's Subject Property beyond the Port-City lease term which terminates in July 12, 2012.

4.8 Plaintiff Port is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that none of the plaintiff's predecessors in title knew or had reason to know of the existence of the claim of interest of the United States or its agencies in the Subject Property at any time prior to 2008" (emphasis added).

As an LWCF park, Kah Tai was inspected every five years. Among the documents found in public records requests are the ones shown here (click on images to enlarge). The upper image is the cover letter for the 2005 inspection. Note it is from IAC, which is responsible for compliance inspections in LWCF parks. Note also that it is addressed to the current port manager and that it lists both state grant number 81-043A and the FEDERAL LWCF grant number 53-00486.

The lower image is the actual inspection report. Note that it says LWCF in the upper right, and that it lists the Port as 'project sponsor'. The inspection comments are 'Very attractive facility with trails around lagoon, restroom and picnic shelter being the prominent site improvements. Trail access is possible from several locations around the lagoon, with primary parking provided at the trailhead at 12th Street.'

Note the inspection included evaluation of use for intended purpose, compliance or evidence of conversion. Note that signage to acknowledge funding program and partners is checked.

This inspection was in 2005. The port manager received the report. How can the Port claim not to know about Kah Tai's LWCF status before 2008?

anybody want a copy of that contract?

Continuing with the Port lawsuit, paragraph 4.3 from the 24 October post:

If the Port is attempting to suggest that the City leading the application process and the Port merely being a 'signator' absolves the Port of any obligation, note the language in the IAC grant manual in force at the time (IAC Participation Manual #5: Application Policy and Procedure, January 1979):

5.03 Special Application Conditions

5.03A Joint Projects: Joint projects are where one jurisdiction owns the property which is to be developed by another. In each case, a prime sponsor must be identified through an appropriate resolution passed by both agencies. In these instances, each agency will be required to sign the Application and Project Contract and be bound by the terms and conditions therein [emphasis added].

The City record is replete with resolutions as described by 5.03A but the Port's record is less transparent, particularly with the loss of all manager's reports for the period. However, we can be certain that at some point prior to signing the 1981 grant project contract, the Port had done the paperwork to be a proper IAC applicant.  In City minutes in the early 1970s, the Port tried to get the City to participate in an IAC grant for a park in the Kah Tai area. And by 1977, the Port requested and received an IAC retroactive waiver for the HJ Carroll property on the western boundary of Kah Tai. Why would the IAC grant a waiver to an entity that was not already a proper applicant?

creation of 'facts' from fallacies

Section 4.3 of Port's Quiet Title lawsuit: "An encumbrance consisting of a US Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 USC section 4601-11) section 6(f)(3) grant-based use restriction by which the use of the Port Property is restricted to park uses purportedly due to the Port's lease of the Subject Property to the City of Port Townsend via a thirty year term lease which allowed the City of Port Townsend to qualify for a US Department of Interior grant for park purposes which included acquisition of lands other than the Port's Subject Property for which the Port was also a signator on the grant application."

That's one incredibly long, target-rich sentence.

1. No one but the Port 'purports' any such thing. Lease is irrelevant to the 6(f) ruling. RCO, NPS and anyone who can subtract 30 from 2012 agree on this. The 20+ acre lease in question was signed in 1982. The acquisition grant contract was signed in 1981. The grant application's assurances of compliance were signed in 1980. The retroactive waiver requested by the Port for the HJ Carroll land to be included in an LWCF park was 1977/78!

2. Since the lease for 20+ acres did not exist in 1980 or 1981, it cannot be what 'allowed' the City to 'qualify' for anything.

3. The only lease in place between the City and Port in late 1980/early 1981 was for a few underwater parcels and a 10-ft strip of shoreline on the southeastern side of the lagoon so that the boundary of the area containing all private parcels to be purchased would be controlled by the City. And even this lease was an afterthought, toward the end of the application process, to help the acquisition grant application earn enough points in the evaluation process to qualify for funding.

4. The lease in 1982, for 20+ acres of Port land, was needed by the Port because it offered them control of City-owned rights of way in the boat yard, which the Port required for their own Comprehensive Plan. The City also needed to show control of the Port land for its 1983 IAC development grant application because the Port had not yet transferred its property to the City as it had agreed to do in the acquisition grant application process.

"Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas---only I don't exactly know what they are!"

Alice in Wonderland, after reading the poem Jabberwocky

rewriting history, in lieu of facts

6 December 2001 - Email, Port Manager to City Attorney: "We have the IAC Grant contract in our files. There are no port signatures on the document...I have also checked our Commission minutes and there is not mention of any Port Commission approval of any such IAC grant. I will keep checking."

16 August 1982 - Port Commission minutes: "Review of Kah Tai Park Plan Paul Jacobson and Mark Welch, Representatives of the City of Port Townsend Park Board and Steve Hayden of the Citizen Advisory [sic] presented to the Commission a detailed plan of the proposed park [subject of IAC grant]...the representatives pointed out that the present plans could change dependent on monies available and that the park would take several years before completion. [Port Commission President] Mr. Thompson moved to approve the plans as submitted. Motion passed unanimously." (emphasis added)
---
There are no port signatures on the 1983 grant contract because it was a city grant with the state. There ARE port signatures on the 1981 grant contract with the state (IAC, now RCO) and federal (NPS) government. And perhaps there would be much more information about both grants if all the port manager's reports hadn't disappeared from port archives...

pre-planning an insanity defense

The Port Commission voted to go forward with their quiet title lawsuit against NPS, RCO and the City on 14 September 2011 - one week after RCO recommended the full boundary as 6(f)(3) and two weeks before NPS ruled. It seems they recognized the NPS handwriting on the wall before it was actually written.

One of the more curious aspects of the lawsuit is that it sues the City for attorney fees to sue the City. And the City is not being sued because they've done anything legally offensive. The City is named because they had the audacity to follow the terms of the 1982 lease with the Port and manage the park land as park land because the lease said it could only be managed as park land or the lease would be void. But because it was managed as park land, it is the City's fault that RCO and NPS decided it was park land and called it 6(f) protected, so it is the City's fault that the lease wasn't ignored and the land mismanaged.

What rabbit hole have we just fallen into?