Gilliam County delays resolution to dissolve Port of Arlington after port files corrective plan

The Gilliam County Court on Wednesday postponed consideration of Resolution R2025‑13, which would begin dissolution proceedings against the Port of Arlington, after port officials presented a corrective action plan and said overdue audits are being completed.

Port Commissioner Catherine Greiner told the court she and port staff "take full responsibility for the error," and urged the court to focus on bringing the district into compliance rather than terminating it. Attorney Anna Cavallari, representing the Port of Arlington, told the court the secretary of state's August 26 letter "says that the county should initiate dissolution procedures" but argued the proposed resolution misstates the county's obligations under the cited Oregon statutes. "The Port Of Arlington is in fact operating as an active district," Cavallari said, and she asked the court to revise any resolution to reflect that dissolution is not a foregone conclusion.

The matter matters because a county-initiated dissolution would trigger a formal hearing process under Oregon law and could affect a range of port activities, including management of an RV park and marina, two industrial buildings on the Arlington mesa, a subdivision, and plans for 50 acres at Willow Creek. Port representatives said the port remains active and necessary to Gilliam County residents and businesses.

During public comment, port supporters said the port has prepared a corrective action plan and is cooperating with auditors. Jed Crowther said the port expects to complete the first-year audit "by the end of this month." Cavallari told the court she provided a corrective action letter dated Aug. 29 and that the port's auditors had agreed to have the 2022 audit completed by Oct. 31 and the remaining audits on the schedule described in the plan.

Court members discussed statutory timing and procedure. Court staff said a financial statement (the statutorily required county-prepared document) and other records must be filed with the county clerk and that notice requirements and hearing timelines in the statutes must be followed. Cavallari and other port speakers pointed out that ORS provisions cited in the packet require the hearing to remain open if the board finds the district is operating and that, if the delinquent reports are filed, the order can be terminated.

The court did not adopt Resolution R2025‑13 at the meeting. Instead, commissioners said they would consult county legal counsel, consider the comments and documents submitted by the port, and bring a recommended course of action back to the next court meeting. No formal dissolution hearing was scheduled; county staff said that if a hearing is required it must be advertised in accordance with statute.

The Port of Arlington and county officials will continue dialog; the court directed staff to obtain legal guidance on whether and how a resolution should be drafted to reflect the secretary of state's guidance and the statutory hearing process. The court's next meeting agenda will include further consideration of the item.