Tumwater City Council approves mayor’s proposal tied to Port of Olympia property
Tumwater City Council voted 5-2 Tuesday night to approve a development agreement proposal tied to Port of Olympia-owned land in the city called New Market Industrial Campus, west of Olympia Regional Airport.
The proposal they approved, though, was not the agreement originally proposed by the port, but a late-in-the-game proposal from Tumwater Mayor Pete Kmet.
At issue is a 200-acre parcel of land at the New Market Industrial Campus. More than a year ago, the port and a warehouse developer called Panattoni struck an option agreement that allowed Panattoni to explore development of the site. If all went well, Panattoni would move forward with development and sign ground leases with the port.
Meanwhile, due to community and Tumwater City Council concerns about what might be developed on the site, the idea of a development agreement was hatched. A development agreement does not replace Tumwater’s land-use process — Panattoni still has to go through that if they want to develop on the site — but it did offer some perks to both the city and the port.
In the case of the port and Panattoni, they want a vesting period of 10 years that essentially prevents the rules from changing over that period. In return, the city asked for a trail and land for a future community center on the site.
But in late November, Mayor Kmet made a new proposal to the port that limited vesting to just zoning, while the port wanted the vesting period to cover a broader range of land-use rules.
Kmet’s proposal has since been rejected by port staff.
During public comment at Tuesday’s council meeting, port Commissioner E.J. Zita, who said she was speaking as a citizen, said the port confirmed Monday that it “plans to move forward without collaborating with Tumwater.”
Port of Olympia Executive Director Sam Gibboney said late Tuesday night the port and Panattoni do not support the mayor’s proposal. However, she believes the agreement is not dead and more discussion is possible.
“The port has not ruled out further negotiations,” she said.
She also clarified the port commission met Monday in a work session. The development agreement was not on the agenda and the port commission did not vote on it, but at the end of the work session there was commissioner discussion about it, Gibboney said.
The council members who voted in favor of the mayor’s proposal Tuesday night were Michael Althauser, Leatta Dahlhoff, Angela Jefferson, Debbie Sullivan and Eileen Swarthout. Those opposed were Joan Cathey and Charlie Schneider.
Schneider went so far as to question Tumwater staff about the possibility of approving a moratorium for the Tumwater property.
Cathey pointed out the port has already rejected the mayor’s proposal, so what’s the point of voting to send it to the port again?
“We keep sending things back there as if it’s going to change anything,” she said.
Kmet defended his proposal, saying the City Council would finally be submitting something to the port. “I think it’s worth continuing to have the discussion,” he said.
Other council members echoed his thoughts.
“I would like to move this forward,” Dahlhoff said. “Let them officially say no and go from there.”
Althauser agreed.
“Personally, I think it is important to take a step to go on the record,” he said. He added about the mayor’s proposal that “these are the minimum standards that we expect to be achieved if you want to develop this parcel.”
Cathey, though, feels disrespected by the port.
“I don’t think we’re dealing with honest brokers or people who keep their word,” she said. “All you have to do is look at the history of the port and we’re in trouble.”
This story was originally published December 8, 2021 at 9:50 AM.
