Friday, October 2, 2026
The Port of Olympia Commission approved a $5.25 million contract to remodel the former Dancing Goats Coffee building as the port’s new headquarters near the marine terminal entrance.
The commission authorized Executive Director Alex Smith to award a $5,251,734 contract to Auburn-based construction firm Good News Group during a meeting on Monday, July 13.
The commission authorized the purchase of the building on February 2025 for $2,157,850 after the group backed away from an initial plan to move to the proposed Waterfront Center near Swantown Marina.
Public Works Program Manager James Sommer told the commission the remodeling would expand the building’s second floor by around 4,000 square feet for office and storage space. The remodeling also include upgrades to the building exterior.
Sommer noted nine companies bid for the project, with the lowest five bidders all within a $150,000 spread. The remodeling should take approximately 194 working days.
“If you average the lowest five bids, it's a spread of about 1.5 percent, which is phenomenal when you're talking at this high of a level,” Sommer said. “(It) gives me great confidence that we got good numbers, we defined the scope well, and we had a well-developed solicitation package.”
Before the commission approved the contract, Commissioner Jerry Toompas asked for the full cost of the project as he thought it was $6.5 million.
Sommer explained the budget allocation for the project was split since construction is going to span two years. The remaining costs will be requested in next year’s budget.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JW
Congratulations for the bold endeavor of the Port with our tax money. Stunning and brave.
Wednesday, July 15 Report this
5th street
7.7 million for the headquarters of a business that’s primarily/only accomplishment is underwriting Weyerhaeuser and losing money harvested from property taxes
Wednesday, July 15 Report this
jimlazar
I generally believe that public agencies should OWN and not RENT their office space. They are likely to be around for a long time. They have a low cost borrowing rate, lower than any landlord. And the needs of a public agency are different from those of an office building. Plus there are security issues for a public agency that require special facilities.
That said, occupying a space that is a prime retail location adjacent to the Farmer's Market is a little bit unfortunate. And paying $2.2 million to "buy" a building on land they already owned seemed very odd to me -- if the tenant abandoned their lease, to avoid paying rent on the land, they should abandon the building. The Port should have gotten this building for nothing.
Wednesday, July 15 Report this
Boatyarddog
Financial PIRATES is what the Current Climate at POO is, generate little income, Shelter and coddle The Timber Baron Weyerhauser.
Wednesday, July 15 Report this
VDRAKE2
Tell me the commission and the government of Olympia isn't part of the new way of government in the United states. This is totally 100% OLIGARCH move so Warehouser can find a little place of its own in Olympia. Way to go Port commissioners! You really did a good one. Utilize millions so you get some nice digs. Wow... honestly we voted for the wrong person, people, committee.
Wednesday, July 15 Report this
sunshine39
Another example of the port's amazing record of poor business decisions
Wednesday, July 15 Report this
Person of Interest
The goal of the project is to reduce the Ports operating expenses by eliminating the cost to lease office space.The Port staff deserve professional office space to work. The Port will be using over $8 million dollars in capital reserves to accomplish this goal (entire project). The payout on this project is years in the future. The expenditure of capital draws down the Ports capital reserves significantly. No grant will be paying for this. The commissioners who voted to approve this are gambling on the overall Port finances improving over time in order to support the new offices. If a commissioner voted in favor of the new office building that is tacit approval of the continued operations of the Port including the marine terminal over a long period of time as the new offices will have a useful life of decades. There maybe operating costs for the new offices that will increase the payout time line. It will be interesting to see how the Ports capital appetite is constrained by this project.
Thursday, July 16 Report this
Snevets
Sommer explained the budget allocation for the project was split since construction is going to span two years. The remaining costs will be requested in next year’s budget.
@jimlazar Agreed
Thursday, July 16 Report this
Yeti1981
The comments about the Port of Olympia often leave me a bit disenchanted. Mostly because they often seem to start from a false premise: that a public port should be evaluated like a private company.
I understand why a $5.25 million construction contract catches people's attention. Taxpayers should absolutely ask questions whenever a public agency makes a significant capital investment. Transparency and accountability are fundamental responsibilities of government. But it's also important to evaluate decisions based on the complete picture rather than a single headline.
First, this is not simply a decision to remodel an office. The Port purchased the former Dancing Goats building in 2025 and is converting it into a permanent headquarters that it will own for decades. Public agencies often determine that owning a long-term facility is more fiscally responsible than leasing office space indefinitely. The proper comparison isn't today's construction cost versus doing nothing. It's the lifetime cost of owning a public asset versus paying rent year after year without building equity. That long-term perspective is how capital projects should be evaluated.
Second, the competitive procurement process appears to have worked exactly as intended. According to the article, nine firms submitted bids, and the five lowest bids were within approximately 1.5 percent of one another. That's a strong indication the project was well-defined, competitively bid, and priced according to the market.
Some criticism of the Port also focuses on its financial statements, often concluding that the marine terminal "loses money." That oversimplifies how public infrastructure is evaluated. Governmental accounting requires long-lived assets to be depreciated over time, which can make annual financial statements appear less favorable than the actual cash position or economic impact. Depreciation is a required accounting expense, but it is not the same as cash leaving the organization each year. More importantly, public ports exist to create long-term economic opportunity, not simply to maximize annual accounting profits.
The Port's value extends well beyond what appears on its own balance sheet. It owns and manages the marine terminal, Olympia Regional Airport, Swantown Marina, industrial properties, rail connections, and other transportation infrastructure. Those assets support longshore workers, truck drivers, rail operators, manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, recreational boating, aviation, and businesses throughout Thurston County. The jobs, private investment, and economic activity generated by those facilities occur throughout the regional economy and cannot be measured solely by the Port's operating statement.
It's also inaccurate to suggest that the Port exists simply to subsidize Weyerhaeuser. Weyerhaeuser has been an important customer over the years, but the Port's marine terminal is public infrastructure designed to serve many industries. One of Olympia's greatest strengths is its breakbulk capability. While Seattle and Tacoma have largely optimized their terminals for containerized cargo, Olympia can efficiently accommodate oversized equipment, heavy machinery, project cargo, forest products, steel, and other specialized cargoes that don't fit the container model. That flexibility provides a competitive advantage and positions the Port to serve industries that require capabilities many larger ports no longer emphasize.
Beyond commerce, the Port is also a strategic public asset. Its deep-water terminal, airport, rail connections, industrial properties, and maritime facilities contribute to emergency preparedness, disaster response, military logistics, and regional resilience. Those capabilities become invaluable during emergencies and are extraordinarily difficult to replace once they are lost.
One question raised in the comments is why the Port paid approximately $2.16 million to acquire the building if it already owned the land beneath it. That's a reasonable question, but the article does not explain the property's legal structure. In commercial real estate, it is common for one party to own the land while another owns the building or leasehold improvements under a long-term ground lease. If that was the case here, purchasing the building may have been necessary to obtain full ownership and control of the property. Without additional information, it isn't possible to conclude that the building should have been acquired at no cost.
Reasonable people can debate individual projects and policy decisions. That's healthy. But those discussions should recognize the Port's broader mission and long-term value to the community. The Port should be judged not only by a single year's financial statements or the cost of one capital project, but by the economic opportunities it creates, the critical infrastructure it preserves, the resilience it provides, and the public assets it manages on behalf of future generations.
Wednesday, July 22 Report this