Friday, October 2, 2026
The Port of Olympia Commission voted 3-2 to approve a $11.25 million federal grant application with Maritime Administration (MARAD) to fund the construction of a second marine terminal warehouse and dredging of shipping berth.
The grant would cover the majority of the costs for the two projects, while the port would cover the remaining amount. The warehouse, which the port aims to build to store cargo from a Brazilian pulp manufacturer and paper producer, is estimated to cost $9.7 million, up from the $6.5 million cost the port budgeted for in its 2026 capital budget.
The dredging project is estimated at $8 million, and involves removing roughly 24,000 cubic yards of sediment to be cleared out down to a depth of 40 feet across 5.36 acres.
Commissioners who voted in favor of the application believed it was a fiscally prudent strategy, while dissenting commissioners criticized the ballooning costs of the warehouse and lack of transparency in the process.
The port originally planned to address the dredging, as part of its broader Budd Inlet remediation project. But it is pursuing funding now as the grant requires dredging projects to be coupled with an active infrastructure development, according to Marine Terminal Senior Manager Afsin Yilmaz.
As the warehouse is the port’s only current infrastructure project, Yilmaz said the port packaged the two projects together so the dredging component qualifies for funding.
Port Executive Director Alex Smith said the most recent dredging at the terminal happened in February 2015 and only covered a 150-foot section of the berth.
There has been significant sedimentation around the berth areas since then. Despite the federally mandated depth being 42 feet, the north end has shoaled up to a mere 25.2 feet, shrinking the usable space of the berth and making it more difficult for pilots to maneuver their vessels.
Multiple sources have confirmed the issue, including a 2026 bathymetric survey requested by the Puget Sound Pilots, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data and private surveys.
Yilmaz added that based on their projections, the sedimentation would limit the terminal to handling one ship at a time instead of two by 2030.
Of the five commissioners, Krag Unsoeld and Jerry Toompas voted against the grant application.
Unsoeld said he was not comfortable with the application, as it would signal the port’s long-term commitment to developing the marine terminal.
"I'm in favor of the money for dredging, but I'm against lumping it in with the warehouse because that's making a long-term commitment to developing the marine terminal in ways that I am not comfortable," Unsoeld stated.
He also asked what penalties the port could incur from MARAD if the port ultimately decides not to construct the warehouse.
Commissioner Jasmine Vasavada, who presided over the meeting, said the commission had already moved past questions at that point when he asked the question, leaving his inquiry unanswered.
Toompas focused on the cost of the warehouse, debating how much the port has budgeted for the project and pointing out how much it has risen in cost. He also expressed frustration over the amount of time they were given to decide on the issue.
“I don't like having this short period of time to make this,” Toompas said. “And I think this is the most important decision we've made as a commission this year.”
In response, Commissioner Joel Hansen said the federal notice for the grant was released on April 7.
“This is what I do in my day job. These things move fast, so it's not something that we can spend years planning for,” Hansen said.
Hansen added that doing the projects now would avoid inflated future costs and utilizing the MARAD grant reduces the port’s required match to just 30 percent of the costs. By comparison, the Washington State Department of Ecology would require a 50 percent match for remedial cleanup grants.
Commissioner Sarah Montano acknowledged ongoing debate surrounding the warehouse, but believed that securing the grant would not lock the port into a single path.
“I don't think that conversation is over,” Montano said. ”I think I agree that we need to continue to look into the funding or the warehouse options. We just need to continue to be nimble on that business decision.”
Vasavada appreciated the staff's business agility, but said there have to be improvements with the way they communicate on how they make decisions.
“I think the port is not yet running on all four cylinders when it comes to achieving the full level of communications that we'd like to in order for everyone to understand where we get to decisions,” Vasavada said.
She also validated community concerns regarding the port wanting to pursue major infrastructure projects, like the warehouse, before finalizing a broader master plan.
To address the issue, she called for the implementation of a 10-year capital plan and other long-term strategic frameworks to affirm the port's operational direction.
“We're taking this urgent decision because of the timeline of a grant, but I really urge (Smith) to land that question with this commission so that routine operational decisions don't become very big political questions,” Vasavada said.
Vasavada also urged Smith to address outstanding questions regarding the application and to share the information with the public.
12 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
RondaLarsonKramer
The process by which the Port made this decision is problematic. What troubles me most is that the availability of grant funding seemed to drive the decision rather than the other way around. Shouldn't the focus have been on whether the decision was good from a policy standpoint, and only then advance to considering whether to pursue grant funding?
The Port was told it needed to act quickly because of a grant deadline and that dredging had to be bundled with a new warehouse project. Yet commissioners were not given answers to basic questions, including what would happen if the Port later decided not to build the warehouse. That question should have been answered before the vote, not after.
A grant opportunity is not a strategy. The commission should first decide whether a second warehouse is the right long-term direction for the marine terminal and only then pursue funding. Instead, the discussion focused on the urgency of the grant application itself.
This also reflects a broader pattern. Time and again, Port of Olympia staff present major decisions as urgent, limiting meaningful deliberation by commissioners and public discussion. Urgency may be unavoidable in some situations, but it should not become a substitute for planning or a reason to bypass careful scrutiny of major public investments. Before committing taxpayers to major infrastructure investments, the Port needs a clear long-term vision for the marine terminal and greater transparency about how these decisions are being made.
Chair Vasavada acknowledged concerns about transparency, communication, and the lack of a long-term plan for the marine terminal. Those are valid concerns. But when Commissioner Unsoeld attempted to ask a basic question about what obligations the Port might incur if it accepted the grant and later decided not to build the warehouse, she told him it was too late to ask because the discussion had moved on.
If commissioners are not allowed to ask fundamental questions before voting on an $11.25 million grant application, then expressions of concern about transparency and communication ring hollow. Transparency is not something that is discussed after the vote. It is something that occurs before the vote, when questions are being asked and answered.
One final thought: if I were a port commissioner, I would ask Afsin to provide the specific section of the FY 2026 PIDP NOFO, guidance, or MARAD correspondence stating that berth dredging is ineligible unless coupled with an active infrastructure development project. If that requirement exists, commissioners and the public should be able to see it for themselves.
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
johnvaneenwyk
Once again, the Port railroads through a very questionable project. Why? What’s the rush? Is this the last and only grant possibility? The Port loses money every year. Are they hoping to find a pot of gold at the end of the development rainbow? The Port plays with our tax dollars,. yet gives short shrift to the needs and perspectives of the public.
Thank you very much, Jerry and Krag. We, the public, deeply appreciate your courage in taking on the Port’s antediluvian planning and manipulation. And, Jasmine, thank you for your efforts, but it falls on deaf ears. .
By the way, who is the Brazilian pulp manufacturer and how much revenue does the Port plan to receive from them for storing their “cargo?"
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
Chris_R
johnvaneenwyk - Suzano. They do ship through the port, but I'm not aware of any contractual obligation they have. Others might have more info on a contract, if it exists.
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
ScottWall
The history of the Port of Olympia, as it relates to unjustifiable spending on "improvements" to the perpetually unprofitable marine terminal, does indeed repeat itself.
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
MisPeeps
Regular citizen here.
I do not see how this is a good thing for the people of Olympia. It seems to only be a good thing for a Brazilian paper manufacturer! 9.7 million tax payer dollars to ensure the port is used "long term" as a shipping port does not make sense. Why would we want any ships to navigate ALL THE WAY from the Straight of Juan De Fuca through Puget Sound to Olympia. I think the people of Olympia would like to see the property developed as a park for recreation long term. That beatification and recreation would benefit us long term. We don't want big ships to even come here anymore. I'm with Krag Unsoeld and Jerry Toompas an this. This seems so fishy to lump the dredging with this Brazilian paper companies project and rush it through. Who really benefit's here, and who is getting paid off? Does this really benefit the people of Olympia long term? We are better than this. and we want better than this for Olympia. This should not go through.
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
Person of Interest
Vasavada is killing dialogue right in the open. The most important vote of the last few years was not even accorded a work session. The fix was in on this vote well before the meeting. Commission leadership is not allowing dialogue on the biggest port expenditure in a long time.
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
Snevets
Thank you to Toompas & Unsoeld for their commitment to wanting transparency & accountability on this issue. I too am curious & not satisfied on why Toompas's question went unanswered. This is A LOT of money & a huge decision going forward! Thank you @Ronda for your important words & questions.
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
Boatyarddog
Emphasis on LACK OF TRANSPARENCY here. OLYMPIA doesn't want or Need a Second Storage Warehouse. Especially One that serves a Non contract Entity Suzano, strips RAIN Forests for Banana trees then cuts those trees when used up for Paper pulp. The RAW waste of our Worlds natural Systems is alarming, catastrophic, and is complete Debauchery and Systemic Greed. It's Damning that only 2 Commissioners blocked this. VASAVDA is completely UNHINGED not to allow questions during a period deemed for these conversations. She is blocking the processes by which ALL parties can talk it out and come to an agreeable out come. Here's and Idea.. sell that POS Blue Crane and ofsett some of these costs. Sell the MARINE TERMINAL OFF and be rid of these Legacy Pollution problems, NO MORE DREDGING NO more Legacy Pollution problems for Future Generations to embrace. QUIT PANDERING TO WAYERHAUSER and These Longshore Workers Not willing to get with getting off perpetually More AND More Taxpayers levies. STOP THE BURDEN ON STAKEHOLDERS AND TAXPAYERS, MAKE the ones that require the most in Infrastructures Pay for these Improvements. And GET VASAVADA OUT we ALL know what she's about now. ENOUGH!!!
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
Oly1956
I watched the meeting. Commissioner Vasavada just followed Robert's rules and conducted the meeting according to the agreed rules of the commission.
Everyone had unlimited time to question and discuss, and when no other commissioners had any questions they moved the meeting along. You can't expect to do things out of order in an official government meeting, otherwise all hell would break loose.
If someone didn't ask a question, and after discussion they still wanted to ask, it's their own fault.
Wednesday, June 3 Report this
Yeti1981
Applying for funding preserves options. It does not eliminate future discussion about project design, financing, operations, or long-term planning. Those conversations will continue through future public meetings and commission actions.
Thursday, June 4 Report this
jimlazar
The way our Port thinks about OUR money means that they will not count this $10 million as a "cost" of the marine terminal. Even though it is public money being "invested."
Then they will count the revenues from Suzano and any other shippers as revenue, but never count the grant money as a cost it must offset.
It's simply bad public policy to treat public money as "free money."
The Port does the same with our property taxes. They collect over $8 million per year from us in property tax. That's equal to almost one-half of their operating revenues from Port tenants like the shipping companies, Weyerhaeuser, the tenants at the marina, and the users of the airport. And they claim to be "making money" when, in fact, without the property taxes they would quickly go broke.
The Port owns about $500 million of public assets, mostly real estate. If they made an ordinary return of 10%, they would have $50 million/year to work with. They could reinvest half, and pay the other half in dividends to us, the public. We would get $25 million/year in distributions, rather than pay $8 million/year in taxes. That would make it worthwhile to have a Port district.
It's time to elect Port Commissioners who will commit to reducing property taxes to zero over a few years time. If the Port of Olympia can operate at a profit, then it does not need tax subsidies. If it cannot break even, it should close down and distribute its assets as provided by law (pay off the debt, and the rest goes to the school districts).
Thursday, June 4 Report this
Person of Interest
For whatever reason many people in Thurston County do not trust the Port or the Port Commission. The belief is that these groups are not transparent and stifle dialogue. While they may have slender excuses to hide behind how things are handled matter. It can be just as important as how a project is brought forward than its outcome. The May 26th meeting on the grant application and stifling dialogue from one commissioner only adds to the public’s concerns. Optics matter.
Friday, June 5 Report this