Development agreement between Tumwater and Port hits bump after port rejects new proposal
The city of Tumwater held a nearly three hour public meeting on Tuesday to get feedback on a proposed development agreement between the city and Port of Olympia.
The agreement, if approved, would guide development of a 200-acre parcel of land near Olympia Regional Airport, better known as the port’s New Market Industrial Campus. A Southern California-based warehouse developer called Panattoni, which is working with the port, would like to develop the land.
But Tuesday’s meeting almost stopped before it started after Tumwater City Administrator John Doan announced the port “withdrew their request to consider the development agreement and suggested the city not hold its public hearing.”
When did that happen? Right before Thanksgiving. Tumwater Mayor Pete Kmet made a new development agreement proposal to the port on Nov. 23 and port staff rejected it the following day.
Port and Tumwater staff previously hammered out a 10-year vesting period for the development agreement, which would cover a number of areas for the eventual project, such as for streets, trees and stormwater. Kmet’s proposal limited vesting to just zoning. The port considered that a deal-breaker.
“We need to provide certainty by providing reasonable vesting language,” said Allyn Roe, the port’s business development and real estate director, during the public hearing.
Roe said the mayor’s proposal “has significantly altered the key terms approved by the port commission and therefore can’t be approved by the port.” He asked that Tumwater City Council approve the port’s development agreement proposal as presented.
The City Council took no action on Tuesday, deciding to table the conversation for a future meeting set for Dec. 7.
It was a confusing meeting at times. After the 11th hour proposal from Kmet, Councilwoman Joan Cathey questioned the need for the gathering.
“Why are we voting if it’s a moot point?” she said in reference to the port’s action. “We’re still talking about the development agreement as if it was still in place and active. They (the port) pulled out of the agreement, this phase is over and we’re having this hearing. I’m not excited to put my position on a resolution that means nothing.”
Mayor Kmet said the port commission has yet to weigh his proposal.
“That’s something we need to keep in mind,” he said. “There could very well be an agreement at the end of the day.”
The Olympian reached out to port commissioner Joe Downing during the meeting and he acknowledged that the mayor’s proposal hadn’t come before the commission — but it’s unlikely to come before the commission if the City Council approves Kmet’s version of the development agreement, he said.
In addition to Roe, about 30 other people spoke during the public hearing, the majority expressing their opposition to the development agreement.
Connie Campbell of Tumwater questioned the economic return of warehouses and raised concerns about environmental impacts, including to stormwater and groundwater.
“Please consider rezoning the property so that a giant warehouse can’t be placed there,” she said.
City of Tumwater employee Josh Stewart took a different view, saying increased property tax revenue could mean a lot to area schools. He has children who attend Tumwater schools and classes are crowded.
“It’s a big shot in the arm for our teachers, our schools and our children, and that’s being overlooked here,” he said.
Late in the meeting, Mayor Kmet explained his decision to make a new proposal to the port.
“It all boils down to vesting, and that is the key issue,” he said. “Normally, a project is not vested until they submit a complete application, and we are nowhere near that. We’re still in the highly conceptual stage. We’re not even sure about the size of the buildings, or what the uses will be, the configuration of roads and how stormwater will be handled.”
The port released a statement late Tuesday.
“The Port of Olympia stands by its commitment to continue to work with the city of Tumwater to ensure a reasonable and amicable development agreement.”
This story was originally published December 1, 2021 at 5:45 AM.
