Monday, November 10, 2025
The Port of Olympia owns approximately $500 million in property, according to data received from the Thurston County Assessor. But, unlike a normal landlord, it loses money on each of its major commercial business units — the Marine Terminal, Marina, Olympia Regional Airport, and rental properties. It subsidizes these losses by raising taxes on every taxpayer who pays property taxes.
Additionally, the Port of Olympia falsely claims it’s “in the black” financially. But without nearly $4 million in property taxes, it actually lost $2.8 million in the first half of 2025. The airport and marine terminal also lose money once bond interest on associated debt is counted.
Other ports use taxes too, but the Port of Olympia leans on property taxes more and hides the losses. It gets $8 million a year in local taxes. That is an amount equal to 46% of the port’s operating revenue from all sources — revenue that is paid by Weyerhaeuser, by people who rent slips at the marina, and by people who use the airport or rent hangar space there.
The $8 million a year that the port gets from local property owners isn’t free — it’s our money. The port is using our money to cover bad finances. We deserve honest books and accountability. This is why voters need to elect candidates this November who plan to make changes, not support business as usual. Voters need to elect Krag Unsoeld and Jerry Toompas to the Olympia Port Commission.
If one compares the financials of the Port of Olympia to those of the ports of Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Grays Harbor, one can see just how unusual the Port of Olympia is. The amount of taxes it uses to prop up its budget is almost half its operating revenue, at 46 percent. Compare that to only 26 percent for the Port of Tacoma, 8 percent for the Port of Seattle, 12 percent for the Port of Everett, and 7 percent for the Port of Grays Harbor. The Port of Olympia is two to six times more dependent on our property taxes than these other port districts are.
The port generally uses property taxes to pay off its debt rather than to fund daily operations. But the port’s quarterly financial statement hides this debt from the public and fails to assign the interest on bonds to the different business units for which the debt is incurred.
According to the Washington State Auditor’s Office's analysis of financial statements from December 31, 2023, the port owes about $30 million in long-term debt. It pays roughly $4.6 million each year to cover it, and of that amount, about $1.1 to $1.6 million is interest and the rest is principal.
But you wouldn’t know about all that debt by just looking at the port’s financial statement. The first page of the port's June 30, 2025, financial statement (available here) shows the port in the black, with an "Increase in Financial Position" of $1.2 million. But look just above that, and you will see that the port included $3.98 million of property taxes from residents in reaching that "bottom line." Without our property taxes, the port lost $2.8 million in the first six months.
Then, if you go to the Airport and Marine Terminal pages of the financial report (pages 2 and 37) the port shows these two operations with $103,000 of operating income for the airport, and an operating loss of ($184,000) for the Marine Terminal. But these figures do not include the $400,000 interest on bonds, most of which is attributable to the Marine Terminal and Airport. When that is included, both operations are losing money.
Residents have asked the port for several years to show the interest expense for each business unit as a part of the calculation of income from each business element. The port still does not do so. Residents also have asked the port for years to show the property tax revenue separately from the calculation of net income so that residents can see how the port’s actual operations are doing. The Port of Olympia has declined to do so.
Maybe you've heard this: "The Port of Olympia creates 5,000 jobs." It's all spin. The port counts every job of every person working in every building located on port land. For example, the "erector set" building just north of Farmer's Market (111 Market St. NE) is built on leased port land. Merrill Lynch has its offices on the third floor. If that building did not exist, they would rent space somewhere else. But the port counts those jobs — and a spinoff multiplier from those jobs — as "created by the Port."
A spinoff multiplier in economics measures the broader ripple effect of a new venture, or "spinoff," on the wider economy, including indirect and induced effects, by quantifying how initial spending or job creation in the new company generates additional jobs, income and economic activity in other businesses and sectors. Essentially, for every dollar invested or every job created by the spinoff, the multiplier shows the total economic value generated, demonstrating how it stimulates growth and supply chain linkages throughout the region or economy
Spin-off valuations and their corresponding multipliers are susceptible to manipulation by management. This can be achieved through both quantitative manipulation of financial numbers and qualitative manipulation of the corporate narrative presented to investors.
The port creates approximately 48 jobs: its staff. That costs us $8 million per year, so about $150,000 per job.
The rest of the jobs that exist on port property are private sector jobs, and all of these (and more) would exist even if the Port of Olympia went away.
Marine Terminal: If the Port of Olympia disappeared, all of the goods now flowing across the Port of Olympia would instead flow across different ports: Grays Harbor, Tacoma, Seattle Longview, Kalama, Vancouver. The number of jobs would be about the same. For example, if the logs from Vail were trucked to Aberdeen, there would be more truck driver jobs in Washington, but the ship would take three days less to do a round trip to Asia, so there would be fewer ship company employees.
Airport: Someone else would likely operate an airport (There are nine other airports in Thurston County, all privately owned and paying property taxes.) Most likely the state Aeronautics Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation would take over the Olympia Regional Airport, as the state is a major user.
Marina: There are multiple private marina operators. They could expand, and one could take over the West Bay marina.
Office Buildings: If the port put its office buildings up for sale, private owners would buy them, and the tenants would have new landlords.
If the Port of Olympia went away, the private operators would employ people to manage all of these operations, probably approximately the number employed by the Port of Olympia, which means no jobs even in port operations would really be lost. And the $8 million now collected in property taxes would remain in the bank accounts of taxpayers. If they spent that money locally, that would create jobs in retail and services locally.
Ports in Washington state were created under Washington’s Port District Act of 1911. The Washington Legislature designed port districts explicitly to engage in commercial enterprises — shipping, marinas, airports, industrial real estate — while also being local governments with taxing authority.
Their enterprise side (marine terminals, real estate, airports, marinas) often looks very much like a private business. Their government side (property tax levies, environmental cleanup, public infrastructure) gives them public funding tools not available to private competitors.
The blend is central to their identity. Ports can directly own, develop and lease land for private companies — something cities and counties usually do only in limited redevelopment contexts. Ports can levy property taxes to subsidize or backstop those commercial activities, which private firms cannot. Ports are even allowed to use public funds for “promotional hosting,” meaning picking up the tab for drinks and entertainment to court potential tenants.
Washington ports’ governance model almost guarantees waste and conflict with local business. The key is that ports don’t face the discipline of a true business (where losses force closure), nor do they face the checks and balances of a city or county government (which has broader public oversight and responsibilities).
The first problem with the governance model is that ports lack pressure to be frugal or truly profitable. Every port can levy property taxes regardless of its commercial performance. This ability to tax cushions losses and removes market discipline that private businesses must face.
The second problem is that ports can use the free tax money to undercut local businesses. Ports can develop marinas, office space, warehouses and industrial parks, subsidizing them with tax revenue. Local businesses may be forced to compete against a publicly funded business entity with deep pockets.
For example, the Port of Olympia put in a boat fueling station using taxpayer dollars. This is causing economic harm to the Boston Harbor Marina, a local small business that had previously been the nearest fueling station.
Ports often take on long-term debt for projects that don’t generate enough revenue to cover the debt service. Taxpayers end up paying for both operating losses and debt repayment.
Because ports are “special purpose districts,” they don’t get the same public scrutiny as cities or counties.
Budgets are technical, financial reports are opaque, and public attention is low — so mismanagement can persist.
In the near term, the solution for Thurston County is to elect candidates of change over candidates of the status quote. Krag Unsoeld’s opponent is backed by the current port elected leadership. Jerry Toompas’s opponent is part of existing port leadership and voted to raise our taxes. Neither of the opponents represents the change we need.
In the long term, legislative reform is needed. In other states, ports are run as either state-level port authorities or municipal enterprises under a city or county. They don’t get a permanent property tax subsidy to backstop losses.
As a result, ports in other states do not create the same problems as ports here do. If Washington wanted to fix the problems with the Port District Act, the cleanest solution would be to strip Washington ports of their independent taxing authority and require them to operate like ports elsewhere in the U.S. There are ways this could be done, but that is beyond the scope of this column.
Jim Lazar is a retired economist. Ronda Kramer Larson is a local attorney.
The opinions expressed above are those of the writers and not necessarily those of The JOLT's staff or board of directors. Got something to say about a topic of interest to Thurston County residents? Send it to us and we’ll most likely publish it. Click here to email to us.
25 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
HappyOlympian
Close the port forever! These folks criminals of the worst sort, bleeding out innocent taxpayers. Boooooooo
Monday, October 13 Report this
KellyOReilly
Thank you for providing this information to help voters make informed choices.
Monday, October 13 Report this
SunterraTrail
Thank you for explaining the (dis)function of the Port Authority. I have questioned several locals and never received an adequate explanation.
Monday, October 13 Report this
edkobek
Great read! How do we get a sustained effort of public interest. The check and balance all the way down the line simply does not exist.
Monday, October 13 Report this
ShantiMai
Such a well-researched letter! If everyone truly understood the facts, I sincerely doubt they'd continue to pay (unnecessarily) for these egregious actions, covering the a**es of the Port's shoddy managing decisions..
Thank you, Jim and Ronda!
Monday, October 13 Report this
sunshine39
Thank you for this detailed article. We (the public) have needed to know these details.
Not sure that the present commissioners can be said to be responsible for the mess, but it's sure
that we need to keep electing people who can work towards fiscal responsibility.
Monday, October 13 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
More examples of the Port's financial mismanagement:
1) It bought old cranes, which were only used a few times and then sold for scrap;
2) It bought a new crane, which has almost never been used;
3) It has violated the Clean Water Act numerous times, which cost the Port millions of dollars in litigation, stormwater system development, and penalties;
4) It has violated the Public Records Act numerous times, which cost the Port hundreds of thousands of dollars for refusing to provide public records.
Monday, October 13 Report this
JulesJames
Reviewing the candidate websites for Mr. Unsoeld and Mr. Toompas, I would never know closing the Port of Olympia -- or even financial mismanagement -- were their issues. Green stuff and union stuff. The usual candidate talk about using the taxpayer dollar wisely, but my read of the two candidates feels more like their ideological causes are fueling their engines. I too believe the Port of Olympia has been incredibly wasteful. But I believe in the concept of a public port. I don't want private commercial airports sprouting up testing the autonomous air taxi marketplace, or prime waterfront left dormant as part of a wider power struggle between Fortune 500 corporations, or our local loggers driving an extra two hours to bring their product to market.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
BobJacobs
Thanks to Jim and Ronda for "pulling back the curtain".
I have been following port's follies for four decades.
The Port District is a special purpose government, taking our taxes but behaving like the worst of private corporations.
All of its operations serve monied interests but receive tax subsidies from all of us.
This will only end when enough of us stand up and demand it.
Bob Jacobs MBA MPA
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
BevBassett
For four (4) years ending in 2017 I attended more than 90% of Port of Olympia Commission Meetings and Study Sessions, observing the POO in action and learning Port history to that time.
The level of corruption defies adequate description although Jim Lazar and Rhonda Kramer Larson outline some current details above.
Over that four year period it became abundantly clear to me that the Port of Olympia functions effectively, efficiently and successfully to take public assets and move those assets into private hands. -- That's YOUR ASSETS and MINE INTO THEIR HANDS/POCKETS.
They have gotten away with it largely thanks to the sins of omission and commission/complicity of The Daily Zero over the years and decades; however, there's alternative media such as The JOLT which publishes the truth as you read it above.
It is my dearest hope that before I die that the POO will have elected officials, like Sam Bradley and Bob Jacobs in the past, to Krag Unsoeld and Jerry Toompas in the future, in the majority on the Port Commission in order to stop the rampant runaway shameful disgusting extreme and profound level of corruption and bring reform to a bureaucracy that desperately needs cleaning up more than you can imagine...
It's OUR assets people! Wise up and stop giving away!
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@JulesJames, closing the Port of Olympia isn't their issue. To determine whether the $5,000 jobs claim is accurate, one must calculate the number of jobs that would exist if the port closed. This excise is to fact-check the Port's claim of being a job engine.
Krag and Jerry are running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, natural resources restoration, and true economic development.
This election is a turning point for the Port of Olympia — and for the future of our waterfront and airport. Jerry and Krag understand that the Port Peninsula must adapt to sea level rise and replace subsidized and outdated industries with an open-space waterfront that can employ far more people through ongoing event programming, recreation, restoration, and maintenance. Compare that to Hemstad, for example, who was a driving force for redevelopment of Ruston Way in Tacoma, which now has several of the commercial properties in receivership due to millions of dollars in defaulted loans. If he gets elected, it will be more of the same at the Port. I'm voting for Krag and Jerry so we can stop the cycle of mismanagement.
Right now, the Port’s marine terminal leases public land to Weyerhaeuser at discounted rent, for a log export operation that employs only about 17 part-time workers who work there only when a log shipment gets sent, and who work at several other ports around the state. Using our port for so few employees to retain part time work is a low-return, high-impact use of valuable shoreline that will be increasingly threatened by flooding and rising seas.
Krag and Jerry offer a smarter vision:
--Transition the peninsula toward a resilient waterfront, where open space, festivals, habitat restoration, and recreation replace heavy industry.
--Create more jobs — and more accessible ones. Even without permanent buildings, an open-space waterfront can employ far more people through ongoing event programming, recreation, restoration, and maintenance.
--Protect our climate future. Restoring and opening the waterfront to the public will reduce pollution, improve resilience to sea level rise, and reconnect the community to the shoreline.
This is about building a Port economy that works for people, nature, and the next century.
Jerry Toompas and Krag Unsoeld are the only candidates with the courage to stop airport expansion, modernize the Port, stop the financial mismanagement, and face the realities of sea level rise.
Let’s support them — and move Olympia toward a waterfront that truly belongs to all of us.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
BuddBayBat
I'm not that old, but I remember when the warehouses that used to exist at the Port had what we would now call a "small business incubator model". There was secure, although not heated chain-link storage/workshops inside the large warehouses. These were torn down for somebody's idea of progress. This was prior to the transiting fracking "sand" era. I see getting back to that model as profitable to not only the community, but also the Port's bottom line. Affordable rental workspace is like hen's teeth these days. Let's subsidize small businesses, not Megalocorps. Eff Weyerhauser and their sweetheart deal. Let's charge them an honest lease rate, or tell them to kick rocks.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
SecondOtter
This is excellent information and thank you, Jim and Ronda, for putting it out here for us.
The Port has done a lot more obfuscating the facts than it has clarifying them.
The long term resolution to this current pack of um, commissioners.. (I don't slam the candidates currently running for positions) is to close the Port down. All of it. The marine terminal, the planned lease to Swire, and especially the airport. The commission has repeatedly shown over the years that they have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything us, the taxpayer wants. Where did all that money we've given them go? Someone's hidden account? Bitcoin? Under their mattresses?
Disband the Port of Olympia. Shut it down. The marine terminal can be better managed by private business, and the live aboards and other boaters undoubtedly know a lot more about running a marina than the Commissioners.
The commissioners are, despite their words to the contrary, are full steam ahead in turning the regional airport into a feeder hub for SEA TAC. They ignore the fact that they tried that twice in the last twenty years and both times it failed. When we say we don't want that in our county they give us the baloney ...and the shaft.
The owners of Rutledge Farm tried to lease 60 acres of Port land in order to grow FOOD. The Port refused, and when finally forced to say why, said they weren't in the business of agriculture.
YET, the same Port of Olympia intends on leasing..for 99 years, that same land to "Swire", aka Coca Cola, in order for that bunch to steal our water to make pop. Coca Cola isn't good food, but it is edible and is treated as food. It is created using sugar, which is most definitely an agricultural product. Coke won't have to pay for the water in our acquifer, no, they'll take hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, without paying for it, and sell it back to us in the form of bottled water and sodas. When our wells go dry, when the acquifer dries up, Coke will then move elsewhere, leaving us, literally, high and dry.
Oh, and ""Jobs"... right. Any jobs that the Port purports to provide are minimum wage, at best.
The Port of Olympia isn't worth the paper they're written on. Shut it down, kick 'em out and slam the door on their behinds.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
hansotc1
This article confirms a lot of what I had suspected about the Port's management. Instead of generating jobs and business opportunities, the Port seems to just gobble up real estate, much of which sits idle. As a taxpayer in Thurston County, I believe that the entities who need my taxes have a fiduciary responsibility to provide resources for all taxpayers. The share of my taxes that goes to the Port of Olympia amounts to a few cents short of $71.00 per year. I realize no benefit from what I pay in taxes to the Port of Olympia. Now, I can't even enjoy watching a little league baseball game, because the Port has priced the local little league programs out of the Port properties. When I consider how many people who pay as much to the Port as I do, I would think that they could open a large park providing public swimming pools, ice skating rinks, and sports fields to accommodate many of the various sport leagues around the county. This would include the opportunity for the Port to have a company manage a pool or skating rink and collect admissions. And the Port could hire local labor to maintain the facilities, buildings and grounds. What I am saying is that not all of the Port's real estate endeavors have to be related to ships, boats, planes and trucking distribution centers. Now, as a taxpayer, the Port just gobbles up my money every year, and for an individual homeowner and taxpayer like me, it's like tossing my hard-earned money into the trash. Putting the Port property to work doesn't need to exclude the benefit of the taxpayers.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
TheVirtualOne
Thank you for writing this article Jim and Ronda. While I have only recently followed the goings on at the Port of Olympia, I’ve seen enough to glean the truth about the tremendous waste and mismanagement there. I even considered a run for one of the upcoming Port positions. However, I don’t believe the Port or Olympia is prepared to have any kind of conservative leadership, which is what they desperately need. Someone who has a more pragmatic and honest approach, along with years of experience in business and government. This article brings out many of the important issues that need to be addressed, but I believe it is misleading in its support for Krag and Jerry. A review of their platforms reveals typical bent towards greener policies and practices, rather than direct action to stir real change needed at the Port. The properties owned by the Port are currently being misused and propped up with taxpayer dollars, but their descriptions of what they would do fall short of the radical changes required to bring back fiscal discipline and accountability. Instead they have typical verbiage about cleaning up the environment, providing well paying union jobs, etc. What is really required here is a total dismantling of the Port operations like ships coming in to pickup logs, extreme redevelopment of the land on the Port peninsula oriented towards public uses (parks) and retail space that serves the public. I don’t see any of that in their platforms. I question whether their election would result in true change needed to save the taxpayers money and convert these spaces to true public services.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
ClownPenis88
Mismanagement in Thurston County not surprised the Superior Court of Thurston County should have a private company look at waste fraud and abuse over the last 3 years so accountability on the taxpayers money can be transparent and then the community will know where the role of JUSTICE and Fraud cross paths and the court judges and commissioners struggle to save there own jobs of the mismanagement they chose to participate in.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
TheVirtualOne
To add a further note to my previous comment, I walk down near the marina often. A simple example of the kind of change I referred to above is demonstrated at one of the bathrooms nearest the boat launch. It has been in disrepair for months, requiring a new sink and urinal. I have noted a Port employee there doing the repairs now for several weeks and the job is still not completed. If this were referred to a private contractor, this would have been done long ago and within one to two days. This is just an example of the kinds of changes required on a global basis at the Port. More detailed platform promises are needed by the candidates, like specific proposals to cut taxes by 25% the first year, close logging operations within the first 12 months of office, provide a 90 day review of all operations that are losing money along with proposed action plans to remedy them. Instead Insee lofty promises to install change, but platforms to keep the status quo. We need someone who will really shake things up and achieve real change, not just use the typical campaign slogans that are used by Krag and Jerry, as well as their opponents.
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
TheVirtualOne
*instead of lofty promises*
Tuesday, October 14 Report this
northbeachcomm
With the ballots in the mail for this Nov. 4th Local Election, many of us are concerned.
One candidate is Krag Unsoeld.
His opponent says he'll turn things around but his track record says otherwise. He was directly involved with the redevelopment of Ruston Way in Tacoma. Today, multiple commercial properties that he helped attract are in receivership due to millions of dollars in defaulted loans.
I also support Port candidate Jerry Toompas.
He is running against a current Port Comm.
I will vote for Toompas. Jerry Toompas has worked for the Yelm school funding,
for Local unions, for local High School programs....HE REALLY WORKS FOR LOCAL ISSUES.
He has a Master's Degree in Administration, he works for us! Please vote for TOOMPAS!
Wednesday, October 15 Report this
Yeti1981
First, under Washington law, port districts cannot use property tax revenue to subsidize daily commercial operations like the Marine Terminal, Marina, or Airport. Those funds are restricted to public purposes such as debt service, capital improvements, environmental cleanup, and infrastructure that serves the public, not to cover operating losses.
Second, the article’s claim that the Port “hides debt” is misleading. The Port’s accounting follows GASB standards, which separate operating activities from non-operating revenues and expenses like property taxes or bond interest. These are audited annually by the Washington State Auditor’s Office, which has issued no findings of concealment or mismanagement.
Third, comparing Olympia’s tax-to-revenue ratio to Seattle or Tacoma ignores scale and mission. Large ports with international terminals generate vast commercial income; smaller community ports rely more on public investment to maintain infrastructure that directly serves local economic, transportation, and emergency functions.
That last point matters. Maintaining the Port’s assets, particularly the Marine Terminal, airport, and marine fuel infrastructure, is critical to Thurston County’s emergency management capacity. In the event of a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake, volcanic eruption, or major transportation failure, the Port would be the only functional logistics hub for fuel, food, and medical supplies. No county or private entity has the capacity to replace that role.
Finally, the “5,000 jobs” figure criticized in the article comes from standard economic impact modeling used statewide to capture direct, indirect, and induced employment, not just Port staff.
The Port’s finances, audits, and use of tax revenue are public and legally constrained. Calling it “financially mismanaged” or “hiding losses” misleads voters and undermines an institution that plays a vital role in our region’s economic and emergency resilience.
Friday, October 17 Report this
Wesley
So strange to compare a municipal corporation to a private, for-profit business. Red herring Red herring Red herring. The next log ship to call at the Marine Terminal should be named Red Herring. This article is a crock.
Friday, October 17 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@Yeti1981 You are correct that Washington law restricts how ports may spend property tax revenue. The problem is not whether the Port spends taxes legally — it’s that the Port relies on taxes year after year to cover the financial shortfalls of its commercial enterprises. The Port claims to be an “economic engine,” so it’s fair to ask whether it’s run like a successful business. Losing millions of public dollars on commercial operations isn’t economic development — it’s mismanagement. Without nearly $4 million in property tax revenue, the Port of Olympia would have reported a $2.8 million loss in the first half of 2025. That’s the very definition of financial mismanagement — operating businesses that cannot stand on their own without constant taxpayer subsidy.
The Port’s audits may confirm that funds are booked correctly under GASB rules, but audits don’t measure sound fiscal policy. An organization can fully comply with accounting standards and still run its business ventures at a loss — which is what the Port’s own statements show. That is why the comparison to larger ports matters: other ports need far less tax subsidy relative to their operating revenue. Olympia’s dependency — 46% — is two to six times higher than others in the state.
The claim that Port facilities are irreplaceable for emergency management is also exaggerated. Many other public and private airports, marine terminals, and transportation facilities in Western Washington can serve in emergencies. The Port’s own Marine Terminal handles only a few log shipments per year, hardly enough to justify such a large subsidy on “disaster preparedness” grounds.
Finally, regarding the “5,000 jobs” claim: that figure is not a count of actual, direct jobs. It is an economic multiplier estimate — a marketing number that includes indirect and induced jobs throughout the region. If the Port wants that claim to be credible, it should release a verified count of real, on-site, full-time jobs with hours, wages, and benefits.
Our call for accountability remains unchanged: taxpayers deserve honest financial reporting, clear separation of public-purpose projects from money-losing business ventures, and leadership that puts community benefit before institutional self-preservation.
Saturday, October 18 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@Wesley, The Port claims to be an “economic engine,” so it’s fair to ask whether it’s run like a successful business. Losing millions of public dollars on commercial operations isn’t economic development — it’s mismanagement. The Port chooses to compete in the private market. It’s not a traditional government service like a park or fire department. When the Port runs a marina, leases commercial land, or exports logs, it’s operating as a landlord and business enterprise. So yes, it should be held to the same financial standards as any private landlord or business — especially since taxpayers are subsidizing its losses.
Saturday, October 18 Report this
Yeti1981
@RondaLarsonKramer, you raise fair concerns about accountability, but several parts of your argument overlook how public ports actually function under Washington law and how their finances differ from private businesses.
Port finances aren’t meant to resemble a private company’s profit-and-loss sheet.
The Port of Olympia operates under RCW 53, which makes it a public utility district, not a for-profit enterprise. State law requires ports to maintain and reinvest in infrastructure that serves commerce, industry, and public use, not to generate shareholder profit. Costs such as depreciation, environmental cleanup, and capital maintenance are fully booked under public accounting rules (GASB), whereas private companies can often defer or deduct those expenses. Calling those obligations “losses” is an accounting sleight-of-hand that makes normal public asset management look like mismanagement.
Property tax revenues aren’t subsidies.
Under RCW 53.36.120, those funds can be used only for legally defined purposes: harbor and terminal construction, repair, maintenance, debt service, and other lawful port functions, not to prop up business losses. Every expenditure is audited by the Washington State Auditor’s Office, which has issued no findings of concealment or misuse against the Port of Olympia.
Comparing Olympia’s revenue mix to Seattle or Tacoma ignores scale and mission.
Large container ports generate billions from international trade; smaller community ports rely more on local revenue to maintain regional infrastructure. That’s not inefficiency, it’s the design of Washington’s port-district system, created so smaller communities could retain maritime access and economic resilience rather than be fully dependent on the Puget Sound megahubs.
Emergency-management value is real, not “exaggerated.”
The Port of Olympia is a federally maintained deep-draft facility (39 ft MLLW at berth, 30 ft MLLW in channel) under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation program. Its Marine Terminal is one of the southernmost deep-water, rail-connected maritime assets in the state.
In a Cascadia Subduction Zone quake or major volcanic event, when I-5 bridges, rail, and airports could be damaged, Olympia would be the only viable maritime entry point for fuel, food, and medical supplies serving Thurston, Mason, and Lewis Counties.
That’s why the Washington Emergency Management Division and FEMA list Olympia among Puget Sound’s “lifeline ports” for disaster response.
Whether it ships logs or heavy equipment on a normal day misses the point, its value lies in existing, accessible infrastructure when everything else fails.
“5,000 jobs” reflects standard economic-impact modeling, not fabrication.
That figure includes direct, indirect, and induced employment, the same methodology used statewide by ports and economic-development agencies. The Port itself employs about 48 people; the rest reflect the wider regional activity those facilities enable.
In short, the Port’s financial model is working as intended under state law: maintaining critical public infrastructure, providing regional access to global trade, and preserving a logistics lifeline that Thurston County could not easily replace. Declaring that a “loss” misunderstands both the accounting and the purpose of a public port.
Monday, October 20 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@Yeti1981— I appreciate your detailed comment, but I think we’re talking past each other a bit.
You’re right that ports are public entities under RCW 53. But the key issue isn’t whether the Port can use tax revenue legally — it’s how much it depends on it. The Port of Olympia relies on property taxes for nearly half of its total revenue, far more than most Washington ports. That’s not an accounting dispute; it’s a policy concern. A port that constantly needs taxes to balance its books is not financially sustainable, even if it’s following every GASB rule to the letter.
GASB compliance doesn’t make an operation healthy — it just means the books are formatted properly. A business (public or private) that consistently spends more than it earns from its enterprise activities has a structural problem, not a bookkeeping one. The Port’s own quarterly statements show that, without $3.98 million in tax revenue, it lost $2.8 million in the first half of 2025.
As for the “lifeline port” argument — in an emergency, any barge with a landing ramp can deliver supplies to almost any stretch of shoreline or riverbank. FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers routinely use temporary or improvised landings after disasters. A deep-draft cargo berth is not required to bring in relief supplies, and Olympia’s limited cargo volume offers little unique advantage. The idea that it would be “the only viable entry point” for aid is simply unrealistic.
Finally, the “5,000 jobs” figure is not fabricated, but it’s a modeled multiplier, not a head count. If the Port wants that claim to be credible, it should publish verified numbers of full-time, living-wage local jobs created directly by its operations.
In short: legality isn’t the same as accountability. The question is not whether the Port may spend tax dollars this way — it’s whether it should. Thurston County taxpayers deserve better returns on their $8 million a year.
Saturday, November 1 Report this