This should not even be a question, should it? A couple of weeks ago I submitted a letter outlining how taxpayers were being double and triple taxed for the dredging cost in the West Bay of Budd Inlet should their respective elected officials approve the Deschutes Estuary Inter Local Agreement (ILA), and the money would primarily be used to dredge areas to provide access to the private marinas and yacht club in West Bay.
Since then, all but the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) have signed the ILA and approved the use of taxpayer funds to do that. The BoCC postponed voting on the ILA to obtain legal and budget opinions regarding the source of the funds they intend to use – not that they felt it was wrong to use taxpayer funds to basically reduce dredging costs for hundreds of private citizens and three private marinas and a yacht club and saddle the taxpayers with that cost ($66 Million+).
The BoCC will revisit approval of the ILA on October 29. At least two commissioners publicly stated their support for the ILA. Will they do that now that they know what the funds will be used for – to reduce the dredging costs to private individuals and businesses? I am sorry, but since when is it acceptable to use taxpayer funds to do this?
One could argue that our elected officials did not know what the money was being used for. I want to believe that is the case since the wording is hidden not in the ILA itself, but the attachment and exhibits. Because I wanted to be sure of the intended purpose of these funds, I sent the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) a copy of a letter I was preparing for the BoCC and asked them to comment. Using track changes, they provided the following response to the question of who pays for the dredging of the Port vessel berths, marinas, and marina access area:
“Funding provided by the Port would fully cover the dredging within the Port vessel berths. So, technically, the other jurisdictions are NOT paying for dredging in Port vessel berths. Rather, the Port is paying for their dredging and providing additional funding for dredging elsewhere (within marinas and marina access areas).
"Money from the other jurisdictions will demonstrate broad support for the project and its benefits and will fund dredging in other navigational areas of West Bay.”
This statement by DES is misleading, particularly when you read page 2 of Attachment 3 to the ILA that says,
“Maintenance dredging equivalent to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) No Action Alternative in impacted areas of the Port’s vessel berths will continue to be the responsibility of the Port; additional dredging requirements resulting from the Project (above the No Action Alternative), will be the shared responsibility of the ILA Parties (including the Port).”
This ILA specifically deals with dredging costs above the No Action Alternative, so in fact, a portion of the funds paid into the ILA will be used to assist in payment of dredging Port vessel berths.
Exhibits 2a (Representative Annual Coordination Process & Marina Dredging Coordination) of the ILA specifically says that the costs to dredge the marinas, yacht club and marina access area would be shared by all parties.
“Payment by invoice from State with Proportional Contributions from: State, local & marina funds.”
Exhibit 2b (Representative Coordination Process for Port Vessel Berth Dredging) of the ILA specifically says that the costs to dredge the Port Vessel Berths would be paid by “Payment by Invoice with Proportionate Contributions from: State & local funds, also including baseline funding from Port.” In other words, the Port would contribute funds up to the baseline funding and the remaining cost to dredge the Port vessel berths would be proportionately shared by State & local funds.
This is what is in writing and what the leaders of the jurisdictions agree to.
I have shined a light on the specifically intended use of the funds collected by signing this ILA. What will our elected leaders do now? It is not too late to stop this ILA – then gather all the elected leaders that thought they were doing the right thing and work with the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) to restructure the ILA and funding mechanism. Will any of our elected leaders step up and do the right thing?
~ Barry Halverson, Thurston County
The opinions expressed above are those of the writer 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. See the Contribute your news button at the top of every page.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Southsoundguy
Guess the government should stop maintaining public roads, too.
Friday, October 25 Report this
JulesJames
Those private entities cannot dredge navigable waters. If they become effectively landlocked because of silting - now or expected - the economy loses their products, taxes and contributions to local security. At face value it would seem taxpayers are subsidizing recreational boating by the wealthy with this dredging. I believe the expenditure to be a value-plus for the taxpayer. But whomever is correct, deep and sincere appreciations extended for civically caring enough to do this work. You are a strong root for our American tree.
Friday, October 25 Report this
BobJacobs
Barry Halverson asks when it is acceptable to use taxpayer funds to reduce dredging costs to private individuals and businesses.
The answer should be NEVER.
Sadly, if one looks at the Port of Olympia's operations, one sees that all four of the Port District's operating units uses public resources -- taxes and land -- to benefit private interests. If you are a large shipper, a boat owner, an airplane owner, or a major real estate operator, you're in luck. It's called "trickle down", a concept started under the Reagan administration and since thoroughly debunked. Helping the rich is supposed to benefit regular people indirectly, but it usually doesn't.
The city of Olympia has also gotten into the game, forcing all Olympia property tax payers to pay the property taxes of the wealthy people who develop apartment buildings downtown.
"Public funds for public purposes" was the motto of a local organization a few years ago. That is still a good goal.
Bob Jacobs
Friday, October 25 Report this
Chris_R
Fact: Only rich people own boats in the marina.
Analogy to the Halverson analysis: I reroute my sewer pipe from my septic tank to my neighbors backyard. Why? Because they have a fancier house and drive an expensive car. Let them deal with it!
Saturday, October 26 Report this
OlyKid88
While I think I agree with Bob’s points, I'd like to clean up a bit of the divisive political rhetoric that gets thrown around Olympia without debate.
Supply Side Economics ("Trickle Down", "VooDoo Economics") was around long before Reagan and continues on in all administrations. Subsidies. Tax incentives. Tax Deductions. Tax cuts. This was not an invention of the 80's. These strategies existed long before him, and will be around long after.
These days, any tax cut is labeled as “trickle down economics” since only the upper half of income earners currently pay income taxes and therefore benefit from reduced tax rates.
It was also Reagan’s Tax Reform Act in 1986 that expanded the earned income tax credit (EITC) rolled out during Nixon’s term. The EITC is a primary reason why the bottom half of income earners pay no income taxes. The EITC continues to be utilized by both parties to reduce the tax burden for lower income families in the US.
Washington’s electoral votes went to Republican’s Nixon ‘72, Ford ’76 and Reagan in ’80 and ’84.
Just to clarify the MFTE. The MFTE was intended as an incentive to build and invest in "opportunity zones" like downtown Olympia that hadn’t seen a nickel of private investment in decades. It was intended to be money that governments wouldn’t miss during the duration of the exemption since they weren’t getting any revenue before in these underdeveloped and underutilized areas.
Unfortunately, that isn't how the MFTE was implemented when governments realized THEY would lose out on potential property tax revenue. A process was established to create the tax obligation on the assessor’s tax roll and then allocate the amount across all property tax payers. We all pay for the MFTE through higher property taxes.
For a typical new multifamily apartment building, there is a couple million dollars in sales tax revenue, quarter million dollars of impact fees and now the additional expense of required offsite improvements. Ask Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit, how they feel about local development and working within the City of Olympia. Even with free property and volunteer labor, they still can’t get a recent project to pencil out.
These developers behave just like I do with the tax incentives that are available. I take the mortgage interest and property tax deductions every year to reduce my income tax contribution. Just like with the MFTE, I’m getting a tax reduction that others who don’t own property don’t get. All other things equal, these people will pay a higher tax rate than I do because of the benefits I receive from my decision and ability to make a private housing investment.
Growth paying for growth can be a slippery slope. In Olympia, we have taken that concept to the next level by requiring offsite improvements that attempt to make up for the City’s deferred maintenance and lack of investment that current tax revenues are supposed to fund. We all feel the results of this strategy along with the zoning choices that were made years ago - very, very expensive housing.
We needed honest debate a few decades ago during those discussions as we are now feeling the impact of that one sided conversation.
While the local economic arguments might sometimes land in the right spot, the route taken is often politically divisive for no benefit to the actual argument. Olympia needs to create an environment of honest, inclusive and safe debate. That doesn’t currently exist and our community is worse off from it.
We are missing a strong local media presence to evaluate many of these issues. As an example, in my lifetime we have had no diversity on the City Council to the point now where a Masters degree in Public Administration from Evergreen is nearly a requirement to even participate in the decision making process. This has taken the focus away from running, maintaining and investing in the future of the City. The Council has become a political entity, and in many cases recently, an activist entity. If you watch any recent City Council meeting, the impact of this evolution becomes quite clear. What isn’t clear is the long term impacts this will have on our City.
Olympia is becoming a case study of the unintended consequences associated with viewing the decision making process of running a city through an entirely political lens.
Saturday, October 26 Report this
ViaLocal
I loved reading your feedback, OlyKid88. Please keep contributing!
Monday, October 28 Report this