Camas urged to bring airport into boundary

When Trang Lam took over as the head administrator of the Port of Camas-Washougal in August 2024, one of her main goals was to bolster the port’s relationship with her previous employer, the city of Camas. Despite the fact that Camas is the larger city, it’s overshadowed when people think of the port. “When I talk with a lot of people, they say, ‘Port of Camas-Washougal, there’s a little more Washougal than Camas,’ ” port Commissioner Brad Richardson said during the city of Camas’ Jan. 5 workshop session. “I think you all have felt that in the past.” In an effort to change that perception, the port has reiterated its request to bring the Grove Field Airport into the city of Camas’ urban growth boundary, an action the port views as critical to advancing shared goals for economic development, infrastructure readiness and long-term community resilience. Port leaders, committee members and local residents spoke in favor of the proposal during the council’s Jan. 5 workshop session. “The port stands ready to continue partnering with the city and community stakeholders to ensure that integration of the airport into the (urban growth boundary) delivers lasting economic, infrastructure, and quality-of-life benefits for Camas and East Clark County,” Lam, the port’s executive director, said in a Dec. 31 letter to the city. Clark County is in the process of selecting a countywide preferred land use alternative map, which will determine if and how urban growth areas within the county will expand. Alan Peters, Camas’ community development director, told the council during the Jan. 5 workshop that the city supports the growth alternative that brings the 83.79-acre airport parcels into the city’s urban growth boundary. ‘Gem of an opportunity’ That’s the first step toward eventual annexation into Camas. The port believes that annexation would provide long-term benefits, including the creation of family-wage jobs, Lam said. In March 2024, the port requested that the county and the city incorporate port-owned properties within the Camas urban growth area, including 12 of the 13 parcels that comprise Grove Field. Washougal resident Dave St. Clair, a member of the port’s airport advisory committee, told Camas leaders that Grove Field currently generates $6 million in annual economic impact but could bring in up to $20 million per year with city water, sewer and employment zoning. “The difference between our $6 million and $20 million isn’t demand. It’s development readiness and utility certainty,” St. Clair said. “Including Grove Field in the urban growth boundary is a strategic, noncommittal step that enables long-term coordinated planning. It doesn’t approve any specific project or commit the city to speculative growth. Instead, it unlocks the future opportunities for economic development and positions Camas to proactively plan.” Richardson and Washougal resident John Spencer, a port commissioner from 2015-25, told Camas leaders that an annexed Grove Field would provide the city with several benefits, including taxation through leasehold excise taxes and the potential for economic development and job growth. Washington’s leasehold excise tax is a 12.84 percent levy on the use of publicly owned real or personal property by a private individual or business in place of property taxes. “Leasehold excise tax works as a property tax replacement. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty darn close,” Spencer said during the Jan. 5 workshop. “You only get that leasehold excise tax when we start developing buildings and renting out, so we have to get developing and build this thing forward.” Bolt Minister, the co-owner of Washougal’s 54-40 Brewing Company, told city leaders he would consider expanding his business to Grove Field if the airfield property was brought into the city. “We see a lot of job growth opportunities up there with that community being underserved,” Minister said during the Jan. 5 workshop session. “We see our business being able to really complement the airfield. We would love to be up there, but it would be a detriment if the urban growth boundary is not folded in.” Doug Flanagan: 360-735-4669; doug.flanagan@columbian.com

Related Stories