Thumbnail image: An example site plan from the Harbor District’s request for proposals packet for Bayside and Redwood Harbor Village RV parks. | Courtesy the CCHD Despite appearing to favor one proposal, Crescent City Harbormaster Mike Rademaker assured commissioners that narrowing down options for redeveloping the port’s two RV parks won’t be a unilateral decision on his part. It’s an assurance that assuaged most commissioners’ concerns on Monday, particularly when Rademaker brought up a scoring process that they all would participate in. But Annie Nehmer said she was worried that a provision in a request for proposals that allows the Harbor District to start negotiating with a developer before a 21-day window for submissions was up may discourage competition. Request for Proposals – 2025.08.11 – 750.US.101.159.Starfish v.9Download “A company has already been brought to us. They want to move forward,” she said. “I like their proposal, but this should be an RFP just like a job ad or anything else to give everyone in the public 21 days to come to us and maybe compete with them. What if they offer us something better?” Nehmer cast the sole dissenting vote against a revised request for proposals Mike Bahr, CEO of Community System Solutions, presented to the Board of Commissioners for redeveloping Bayside and Redwood Harbor Village RV Parks. She raised concerns that while the re-written RFP states that a potential developer will be encouraged to indicate whether they will secure a performance bond for the project, securing such a bond wasn’t required. Nehmer also took issue with a statement in the RFP that says the Harbor District can select a proposal and enter into negotiations at any time “without further public notice.” “I don’t think ‘without further public notice’ is allowed,” she said. “Isn’t everything supposed to be transparent?” Nehmer’s colleague, Commissioner John Evans, said the Harbor District’s RFP is being transparent in that there could be negotiations before the 21-day window is up. “‘Without further public notice’ is not transparent,” Nehmer said. Bahr, whose company is under contract with the Harbor District to prepare RFPs for its priority projects, came back to commissioners after they deadlocked over his first draft on Thursday. Evans and Board President Gerhard Weber voted to approve the RFP, while Nehmer and Dan Schmidt dissented. Their colleague Rick Shepherd abstained from Thursday’s vote. According to the revised RFP, the initial review period for proposed projects would include an informational conference call on Aug. 22, an in-person site tour on Aug. 26, a deadline for written questions on Aug. 29, a publication of consolidated responses on Sept. 2 and an initial proposal deadline on Sept. 5. When the 21-day window is up, the Crescent City Harbor District would still accept proposals on a “rolling, week-to-week basis” until the Board finalizes a lease, according to the RFP packet. The revised RFP still includes a provision about performance bonds, stating that it must be in effect for the duration of construction. However, if a bond is not proposed, according to the RFP, the developers must provide an explanation and “include how the Harbor District will be protected” if they fail to perform. “An explanation could indicate a preference to reinvest capital directly into project improvements or an alternative method of assuring project delivery,” the RFP states. On Thursday, Rademaker had raised concerns that issuing an RFP for redevelopment of the two RV parks would put a proposal from Orange County-based developers Sean McGraw and Scott Lawhon in jeopardy. He said he was especially concerned that requiring a performance bond would prompt the duo to withdraw their proposal and suggested allowing a developer to provide a justification as to why one wouldn’t be necessary. This satisfied Shepherd, who said that a developer agreeing to reinvest the performance bond money “would be the same.” Nehmer said Renewable Energy Capital developer Alex Lemus had also agreed to reinvest the bond dollars into the project “and that didn’t happen.” After doing a Google search, Nehmer said performance bonds are typically 1% to 3% of the cost of the project. “If we’re looking at a $1 million [project], it’s $10,000 to $30,000 depending on their credit,” she said. “But if it’s just $50,000 it’s only $500 to $1,500, which should be affordable to someone willing to make this kind of investment.” Lawhon and McGraw told commissioners in June that they were planning to invest more than $1.2 million into the RV parks. They hope to attract visitors with large motorhomes while reserving a percentage of the RV sites for current tenants. Other amenities would include concierge services to help guests with booking recreational activities such as selling products made by local vendors. They also envisioned partnerships with Port O’Pints and Rumiano Cheese Co. After Lawhon and McGraw’s presentation, Kevin Hendrick, chair of the Del Norte Democratic Party, urged commissioners to be cautious, stating that the developers hadn’t mentioned a promise of money for the harbor. On Monday, Hendrick said the RFP is not only a method of gauging interest in a development project, it sets a basis for negotiating. It fosters competition. Hendrick also brought up the notion of a performance bond, saying that it should cover the value of lost Harbor District’s revenue after both parties enter into a lease agreement. The developers should be able to pay “a couple thousand” for the lease, he said, with the bond kicking in when that stops. “You need the money now and they’re at $1.2 million, they can start paying you a couple thousand,” he said. “A bond is equal to the value of a year or two of revenue. Then they can screw around for two years and you still get all your money. That’s not $1.2 million.”