As the recall of the three Port Commissioners is pending on a ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court, Tumbleweird continues to look into the case. This month, we will go over the costs that are being incurred (and paid for) by taxpayers.
UPDATE: As of this morning (July 2, 2026), The Supreme Court of Washington ruled that the case for recall is moving forward.
In researching this story, we requested records from the City of Richland pertaining to the illicit connections that were made to the city’s water and sewer system.
We asked for building code violations and related communications (as well as Public Works-issued notices of violations and related communications) related to the hangars that had illicit connections, and were therefore benefitting from illegal utilities hookups.
In the first collection of records released to Tumbleweird, we received information about notifications sent to the owners of the aforementioned hangers at the Richland Airport.
TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR PRIVATE AIRPLANE HANGARS
The city of Richland (COR) sent letters August 25 and 26, 2025 informing hangar owners that they were violating the law by having illegal utility hookups. The owners who received these letters were: The Axe (owner Scott Keller, Commissioner to the Port), TYM2Fly LLC and Cannon Hill, Herb and Jennifer Brayton, Talent Aviation Services INC, C & S Hanger LLC, Bing Manawadu, Sailplane Have (owner James Leedy), C & H Aviation (owner Ryan Hone), Ralph and Dawn Collins, Cliff Dyer, and Steve Poire.
The letters were all sent by Carlo D'Alessandro, Public Works director for COR. The format of the letters was all the same, with only the header being changed for each recipient.
(You can see one of the letters here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DQRlLP32c6NOUAUaaDibGaRJtNeMFSjQ)
The letters read, in part:
Notice of Violation: Non-Permitted Water and Sewer Services
During a recent inspection, the City of Richland identified non-permitted water and/or sewer service connections at your property located at {REDACTED}. These connections are not authorized and are not in compliance with the Richland Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 17 Sewers and Chapter 18 Water, and the City's public works standards.
You are hereby notified that you must choose one of the following two options to resolve this issue.
1. Voluntarily Disconnect Service:
You may elect to have the existing water and/or sewer service disconnected. Please note that this option will result in your facility no longer receiving water or sewer services from the City of Richland.
2. Obtain Permits and Install New, Individual Services:
You may choose to retain water and/or sewer service. In order to bring your facility into compliance, all work must:
- Be permitted by the City in accordance with RMC Chapters 17.16 and 18.12.
- Be completed by a licensed contractor.
- Meet all applicable City of Richland standards.
- Be inspected and approved by the City.
You are granted a compliance period of 90 calendar days from receipt of this letter to complete the necessary work and bring the utility connections into full compliance. If no action is taken within this period, the City will proceed with disconnecting the current unauthorized water and sewer service to the property. The City may seek reimbursement for expenses incurred to perform the disconnect. Failure to resolve this violation may result in penalties as identified in RMC Sections 17.64.020 and 18.32.040. The City may also seek to recover unpaid utility fees.
The COR sent follow-up letters in February to several of the owners with invoices for reimbursing expenses incurred by the City that are over $6000. Some owners with multiple airplane hangars owe double or triple that figure.
(You can see one of the letters here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuYX3MwmHnhPJt3gUe4zPnAWJk_2r1Uu)
This is despite repeated assertions by Port of Benton Commissioners that the costs of their illegal utilities connections were negligible.
The COR also sent a spreadsheet (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1hNgnBaJmKCDaaLzumq3jnQC-nKCuCh) detailing how much each owner owed for the connections, and the shut off dates for those owners not bringing their hangers into compliance. The spreadsheet includes $76,980 of costs unpaid by the airport tenants.
None of the airport hanger owners compiled with the notices sent out to them from the COR.
As we reported last month, the COR cut off services to the airport hangers with illicit connections. Tumbleweird spoke with one of the tenants of a hanger at the Port’s Richland Airport on May 4, after the Tri-City Herald published an article about illegal utilities usage at the Port. The tenant agreed to speak to us on the phone on condition of anonymity.
The airport tenant said he has an airport hanger as part of a “condo agreement” at the Port. He is not listed on the documents that we received from the COR; however, he explained that he co-owned his hangar through his LLC (limited liability corporation), shared a roof with four other “condo” owners.
When we asked specifically about water and sewer hookups at his hanger, he explained that he had a contractor put in a bathroom and shower at his unit. We also asked him if this was permitted work, and if he paid for his water and sewer, and the airport tenant told us that he was receiving free water and sewer from the Port.
We also asked if the tenant had anything in writing about construction work at the hangar, or regarding the Port agreeing to pay for his utilities, and he tried to put us in touch with the contractor who had put in a bathroom and shower (now based in Arizona but with ownership of hangers at the Port). The tenant owner said he didn’t have any paperwork, but said that the contractor insisted that this was all permitted work, and that the permits were filed with the COR.
We are continuing to receive records from COR, but we have not yet seen a permit for improvements for the property. We have received records that show many of the properties at the Port have unpermitted work; watch for that story in August.
The airport tenant who spoke to us was very upset that his services were cut off with “no notification” (as he put it). He believed that the costs of his hangar’s utilities to taxpayers were “negligible” as he used “very little water.”
Tumbleweird asked Ashley Garza, (whom we interviewed for a previous Port of Benton story), to give her expert opinion on the “condo” situation. Garza is President of IC Consulting Corporation, and has worked as a Licensed Professional Land Surveyor for the Port and other entities for over twenty years.
Garza wrote in an email on June 17, 2026:
Real Property, and the conveyance thereof, are regulated by Washington State Law under Title 64. If, in fact, the interest in the units within the hangars in question are to be considered “Condominiums”, the property owner (the Port of Benton) and the owner of the Hangar would have been required to go through a Condominium process, which is regulated by both the State and the Local Agency (City of Richland) pursuant to the Condominium Act under RCW 64.34. This process requires a survey to be prepared by a Licensed Surveyor like myself. None of the property within the Richland Airport has been permitted for and/or processed as a Condominium Plat, which tells me he does not own a “Condo Unit” within the Richland Airport.
Garza said that if the airport tenant is mistaken about his property being a “condo” as he stated, it’s possible that he is instead part of an Association or a Cooperative. “The creation of those types of common interest communities falls under the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act under RCW 64.90, and falls outside the scope of my practice,” said Garza. However, she then added that in the course of all of her years of professional work for the Port of Benton, and after doing title research into the properties, she found that”the requirements for the creation of such an Association or Cooperative have NOT been recorded.”
TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR LEGAL FEES
During the July 10 Port of Benton public meeting, item number 13 from the agenda was simply listed in the packet as “Contract Amendment with Gravis Law LLC.”
Commissioner Bill O’Neil introduces Ron Branine, Port Maintenance and Facilities around minute 25.
O’NEIL: “Item 13, contract amendment with Gravis Law. That would be Ron.”
BRANINE: “Good morning, Commissioners. Simple one. It was 175 [$175,000] initially. We need to extend that up to another 100,000 to 275,000 [dollars] for the remainder of ’26.”
So, in addition to taxpayers covering the costs of utilities at private airplane hangars, the Port of Benton agreed to pay Gravis Law anywhere from $275,000 to $450,000 in taxpayer dollars.
Looking back at invoices from the previous months, we can see invoices billed and paid to both Gravis Law and another firm, Goodstein Law Group (specifically, attorney Carolyn Lake). According to Garza, Goodstein is the firm that the Port paid to defend Commissioner Scott Keller, after an independent investigation conducted by Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt that found Keller had violated the law. Attorney Lake is also handling the Commissioners’ appeal of their recall. Tumbleweird does not have the total yet for those fees, but according to Garza, Lake charges $330 per hour for legal services.
The Port paid for the Schwabe investigation AND to defend the person (Scott Keller) who was found to have violated the law.
So far, we have seen invoices totalling over $80,000 for Gravis Law and nearly $40,000 for Goodstein Law Group. The Tri-Cities Journal of Business reported in February that the investigation by Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt cost $47,000. *
TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR AIRPORT UTILITIES
Near the end of the July 10 Port of Benton meeting, after the executive session (at the one- hour mark), Commissioner O’Neil directed staff with the following comment. O’Neil said:
We're looking to be making some decisions soon, but we need to keep things moving. So could Ron [Branine] or Stuart [Dezember] look into our options at the airport of what infrastructure upgrades we can make to possibly provide utilities, at least the infrastructure part? What it would take?
I know with our budget constraints now, it may not be this year. Likely not. But we kind of need to know what our options are.
Scott Keller’s vocal supporters have previously maintained that there was always an agreement to pay for utilities. The Port has already been found in violation of public gifting laws and now they are entertaining the idea of paying private utilities.
Finally, in a June 3, 2026 announcement on the Port of Benton website, the Port’s Public Information Officer Summer Miya wrote the following (in part):
Port Shares 2026 Budget Oversights
The Port has experienced changes in financial leadership in 2026. In April, Stuart Dezember, CPA, returned to the Port as Director of Finance. Stuart previously served as the Director of Finance for over 15 years. During the review of the 2026 budget documents, several discrepancies were discovered in the Port’s budget. Port staff presented the 2026 budget discrepancies during a May 28, 2026, special Commission meeting and outlined proposed actions.
2026 Budget Variances:
- Beginning cash was understated by $1,737,004
- Loan proceeds associated with the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) were overstated by $1,896,000
- 2025 budget carryover was overstated by $300,000
- Property tax revenue was overstated by $680,346
The variances create a net deficit of approximately $1,139,342 in the 2026 Budget. “We take this issue very seriously and are moving quickly to correct it,” said Dezember. Stuart Dezember is leading the development of a budget revision that will be presented to the Commission at a future public meeting. This revision will rebalance the budget through corrective measures, such as pausing and reprioritizing capital projects and aligning grant-funded expenditures with revised project timelines. Dezember also emphasizes that “The Port’s focus is on ensuring accurate financial reporting and maintaining the public’s trust through transparency and responsible decision-making.”
When Stuart Dezember previously worked with the Port of Benton, it was under Scott Keller as Port Director. It was during this time that many of the previous under-market valued leases were signed (https://tumbleweird.org/investigations-port-commissioners/).
Next month we will cover the ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court.
* Attorney fees (professional services): $135,055.00 Pass-through expenses: $74,233.00 Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt (outside counsel): $60,898.00 Lisa Greenfield LLC: $7,755.00 Investigator's Services: $5,580.00 Combined grand total: $209,288.00 Note: paralegal work (e.g., Debbie Smith at $185/hr) is counted under "attorney fees" above since it's billed within the professional services section, not as a separate expense line.
A lifelong resident of Eastern Washington, Dori enjoys the outdoors, her family, and making good trouble. She has worked for many years in broadcasting and reporting and believes in the value of the 4th estate. She is a true community advocate that loves Washington.
