The Port of Olympia’s new executive director, Alexandra Smith, addressed dozens of questions last week, including about the marine terminal’s profitability and said she supports having conversations about the issue.
The topic was raised during a town hall meeting at the Port of Olympia’s board room on Wednesday, April 24, where some 40 members of the public got to ask questions for Smith, who just took over the port’s chief position last month.
“I know that's been an issue and a conversation folks have wanted to have for a long time, so you know, I'd support absolutely having the conversation,” Smith said.
“What I'd like to include in the conversation is just helping folks understand what's out there; the business that we're doing in the marine terminal right now, the role the marine terminal plays in, say, emergency management if there's a disaster in the area,” Smith continued.
“Then what I don't know is if the choice was made to no longer have a marine terminal, what are the steps that the port needs to take?” Smith said, adding, “My understanding is you need an act of Congress to deauthorize the navigation channels. And so, I'd like to sort of compile that information and have it be part of the conversation, just so we all know, what does it mean if we say the marine terminal is no longer a viable business line to the port.”
The issue was raised twice during the forum. The first time the question was raised during the forum, Smith also said that the port’s marine terminal director has plans to drive more profit.
"I think our current marine terminal director is doing all he can to make the terminal profitable given some of the limitations that it has. He is very well plugged into sort of the international shipping community, and he's got some great ideas for how to try to do that,” Smith said.
The marine terminal is expected to generate a loss of $1,144,930 this year, according to the port’s 2024 budget.
Asked what she is most excited to accomplish at the Port, Smith said that she wanted to rebuild camaraderie within the port.
“The of the first things I really want to accomplish is kind of helping our team gel and really rebuild camaraderie. I think there was just a lot of tumultuous times over the past few years and a whole lot of turnover. And so, we've got a great team, and I just would love to help them become more of a family,” Smith said.
Smith’s other priority is the remediation project for the contamination of Budd Inlet and its role in the development of the port peninsula.
“Then another thing I'm excited about is really diving into the Budd Inlet cleanup and what we can do in terms of having that be part of a larger revitalization in the port peninsula and putting more amenities and community gathering spaces,” she said.
The director explained that there are not a lot of grants available for environmental cleanups, but if the project is done in conjunction with habitat restoration and sea level rise in mind, the port can find more money for that type of cleanup.
Smith also spoke several times about developing a master plan for the port peninsula as a continuation of the Destination Waterfront development plan.
“I'd like to do a master plan for the whole peninsula and ideally do it as a planned action EIS, environmental impact statement,” Smith said.
“So you look at potential future uses, and you also look at the environmental impacts of the potential future uses you're envisioning for the peninsula,” she said, explaining what the process of an EIS would entail.
Smith added that master planning for the port includes the future of the marine terminal and having more recreational spaces on the peninsula.
“For folks who've been out to the end of NorthPoint, that's like one of the best views of Budd Inlet and all of Olympia and we'd love to figure out ways to enhance opportunities for that view and to be able to utilize that area,” Smith said.
“Otherwise, we'd like to, I think, do more master planning and looking at what would be good areas for recreational uses and do that in conjunction, say, down in Tumwater with the city as well, and see what they think similarly out here with the city of Olympia.”
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
jimlazar
The predicted loss of $1.1 million in the 2024 budget does NOT include interest expense on Marine Terminal debt. When that is included, the total projected loss is nearly $2 million for the year. And that's assuming the revenue comes in -- and past Port budgets are generally overestimated revenues.
When Jeff Smith was CFO for the Port of Olympia, the Port DID publish financials that apportioned interest expense to the various functions of the Port. Under general manager Sam Gibboney, the Port stopped reporting that. Prior to Jeff Smith, the Port was not reporting depreciation expense by functional area either.
I attended this Town Hall meeting. It was exemplary, and I comment the new general manager for convening it, and hope she will make this a quarterly event. People asked questions. The new GM answered what she could, passed some questions on to the Director of Operations, and promised responses on some questions after research. Every public agency should hold events where the public gets to ask questions and receive responses.
Most of the Port staff is fairly new, since apparently anybody who could find a job elsewhere left under Sam Gibboney. Most of the Commissioners are new. The General Manager is new.
I am hopeful that the new GM will turn a page in Port of Olympia history, away from deception and secretiveness, and towards honest and transparency.
Tuesday, April 30 Report this
BobJacobs
Alex's openness to public participation and examining basic issues like the future of the Marine Terminal are very welcome.
I expect that she will lead efforts to examine all operations in depth and move toward at least break-even finances. After all, the Port has a half billion dollars worth of public assets entrusted to it, and it certainly should be able to do better than lose money on everything it does.
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, April 30 Report this
Tsobgqobg
The marine terminal needs to be shut down. It's been generating losses year after year.
Wednesday, May 1 Report this
HappyOlympian
Terrific the new director allows questions in this manner! Also would like to see every public agency where this is plausible do the same. I would also like to see the port shut down, or at the minimum end the shipping of logs from here. The log terminal is fairly new and seems to be of little benefit to the area. Would Grays Harbor be a better place for that? Also, is there a way to measure the damage to the roads from logging trucks or the pollution all the port activity causes?
Wednesday, May 1 Report this
JnNwmn
A question was asked about sampling the inter tidal area for pollution (dioxin). The inter tidal area will show dioxin values and cannot be covered up with fill. Covering up the exposed dirt has been the Port's operating procedures for dealing with surface contamination. Alex said she would check on that. In a previous Port meeting it was said the City has 18 storm water outfalls on Port areas. And they might check those for pollution (dioxin).
Wednesday, May 1 Report this
northbeachcomm
There were 50-60 people in the room for this meeting; wonderful!
We peppered the staff with questions for 1.5 hours.
It was great to hear the new Port Director Ms. Alex Smith give us some needed information.
She was forthcoming when she did not know the answer to some questions.
That was refreshing.
One of the questions dealt with the Budd Inlet cleanup of dioxin, a deadly toxin.
One of the proposals to deal with the dredged spoils of the toxin, was to pile
the spoils of dixon up on the isthmus, near the Port marine terminal. Then it would be capped or covered.
Many of us are not happy with this proposal. We think that dioxin should be hauled out
of the area to a toxic cleanup landfill. The EPA has advocated this approach for other toxic locations.
Also, the sources of dixon, on the isthmus should
be dealt with. Before any Budd Inlet clean-up finishes, we need to stop the sources of dioxin
from continuing to leak on the isthmus. Correct?
Wednesday, May 1 Report this
bobkat
It is my understanding that the federal government (DOD) retains a certain (perhaps substantial, un-advertised) interest in the Port of Olympia as a secondary shipping point should circumstances delay/deny access to either Seattle or Tacoma. The Port and JBLM are connected by rail and it is the next closest alternative with access to deep water nearest JBLM should any large movements of materiel/equipment needed to be made to Pacific destinations. IF TRUE - any thoughts of closing the port down or abandoning it ought to be explored/researched a little further to learn if the ideas and "nice-to-have" plans are even realistic. This ought to be explored more in-depth before the investors and developers begin salivating too much.
Thursday, May 2 Report this
Yeti1981
Short-sightedness continues to plague this community. Shutting down the marine terminal is such a bad idea.
Monday, May 6 Report this
Boatyarddog
Yeti1981
Explain how 1.1 million+ in losses annually and More is A Good thing?
This Ports actions over the past 10 Years has Been Horrid for Olympia.
Money losses, Protests, squabbles within the Ports Staff.
Losses of Employees Major Enviromental Lawsuits, lost income thru Bad Dealings.
Enough is Enough.
Stop Dredging Close this bleeding Navigational Nightmare.
Olympia can then Be Proud of its ability to change with the times for Betterment Of our Beautiful Area.
Geeze ENOUGH alrrady
Wednesday, May 8 Report this
Yeti1981
Boatyarddog I could go into an elaborate explanation about the short-sightedness of losing the marine terminal, but at some point it becomes useless to continue beating that dead horse with those who already have an agenda and their minds made up. Significant portions of the local economy are impacted by the operations there, and many people's livelihoods are dependent upon it. Hell, it's not even the win environmentally that local environmental groups believe it would be. Hey, but as I said, it's pretty clear that arguing with a wall would be more effective than trying to help some of these folks understand the bigger picture, and the opportunity we have.
Thursday, May 9 Report this
Boatyarddog
Yeti1981
Not explaining the Pros and Cons amounts to stagnation.
This is where this Port has been for over a Decade+
The jobs you speak of has been the same reasoning Past Port Commissioners and ExEDs used and shown to be a minimal sacrifice of the LShore that would be impacted.
What's their impact, a longer drive to Tacoma.
They will also get a mileage compensation.
The logging Companies there...Well Weyerhaeuser is given a sweet deal and in one case During Ed's. Ed Galligens time he overstepped his Authority and Purchased 2 Specifically Designed Forklifts to Facilitate their Company at a cost that was a nonreturnable item and as well overstepped his purchase authorization which was 300,000.
Why?
Two Commissioners knew about this and only 1 pressed that issue. Commissioner Zita!
I was there and witnessed that total event.
Galligen was in fact given a choice, retire or be fired and lose his retirement.
How did the staff approach this issue?
They were afraid to!
This is when Gibboney entered the picture and continued to divide the staff and join in the Debauchery of lying about the storm water pollution caused by a broken Treatment plant.
This Ports past actions and the fact that they HAD TO BE SUED, then ended up with a 3 yr.
Court Ordered program of Enviromental Compliance.
This Community cannot Trust the Actions of This Port at this time, mainly because of the Agenda of preserving the Longshore Jobs here at a LOSS to the TAXpayer!
This should NOT be the case.
The Marine Terminal is Not a Viable Business here and Tradition be Damned should Stop Logging Operations here.
Then focus on Brake Bulk Contracts NOT LOGGING!
Thursday, May 9 Report this