Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Port of Olympia reported a reduction in vessel activity from timber company Weyerhaeuser, but a rise in revenue in the first half of the year.
Marine Terminal Senior Manager Afsin Yilmaz gave a presentation about vessel activity to the Port of Olympia Commission at a mid-year budget review on Monday, July 20.
He said the marine terminal has so far generated $5,123,690 in operating revenue, which includes fees from loading and unloading, handling, storage, dockage, wharfage, as well as service and facilities charges.
While the figure is above the port’s projected revenue of $3,708,444 at the mid-point, Yilmaz said the data is inflated because Weyerhaeuser front-loaded shipments ahead of contract negotiations. As a result, calls for log vessels will be lower in the second half of the year.
In terms of the number of ship calls (scheduled stops or port calls), Yilmaz reported 10 so far this year, with eight from Weyerhaeuser and two from paper pulp company Suzano. By comparison, the port had 10 and four, respectively, in 2025.
Looking back a few years, the data suggests a downward trend, as the port handled 21 ships in both 2023 and 2024.
Yilmaz attributed the sluggish activity to slow demand from Japanese mill customers.
“At the moment, their customers in Japan — they are recovering with their mill,” Yilmaz said. “It's supposed to come into play again, but it's still slow.”
Commissioner Jasmine Vasavada asked whether the port was subsidizing Weyerhaeuser at this point, to which Yilmaz said no.
He explained that due to Weyerhaeuser’s volume falling below 75 million board feet, a provision with its lease was triggered so that its monthly service and facilities charge was increased by $20,000 to cover around three-quarters of the lost revenue.
Yilmaz said this was the first time the provision has been exercised, as the numbers have never gone that low.
Yilmaz said the paper pulp business remains steady, and is growing slowly with extra storage capacity provided by a warehouse in Lacey. Future growth will remain in the construction of a new warehouse.
Commissioner Jerry Toompas asked how many ships calls staff expect from Suzano in the coming years once the warehouse has been constructed. Yilmaz said he does not expect an increase in ship calls from the company, but rather an increase in tonnage per vessel.
He noted, however, while paper pulp generates higher margins, log ships carry significantly higher tonnage, a metric the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers to prioritize ports for dredging.
Yilmaz added while Suzano’s higher value cargo has offset reduced ship calls, lower ship counts negatively impact tugboat operators.
“Normally they would be dealing and getting paid for 20 to 30 vessels a year,” Yilmaz said. “Now they are getting only 13, so they are getting a little bit antsy because their expenses have gone up a lot too.”
To compensate for reduced ship calls and other regulatory expenses, Yilmaz said operators have tripled their rates to their customers.
He said while the port doesn’t employ tugboat operators, he has heard about this issue from shipping companies who hire the operators. Yilmaz said the only long-term solution to this issue is increasing vessel traffic at the marine terminal.
Overall, Yilmaz reported the marine terminal generated net income of $1,743,786 before depreciation and $851,593 after depreciation.
He said the full-year net income is projected to decrease in the second half due to fewer scheduled vessels.
Yilmaz added he expects the port to end the year near or slightly above break even after depreciation, which is similar to previous years.
16 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
RondaLarsonKramer
I would like to address this statement: "Yilmaz added he expects the port to end the year near or slightly above break even after depreciation, which is similar to previous years."
That conclusion depends on which costs are included. The marine terminal may break even on its operating budget, but that is not the same as covering the **full public cost** of maintaining a marine terminal. When those broader public costs are taken into account, the marine terminal does not break even—it operates at a net loss.
One major example is dredging. Maintaining a deep-water shipping channel is expensive. In 2007, dredging the Port's navigation channel was estimated to cost more than $6 million. See https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/port-of-olympia-s-dredging-to-cost-more-than-6-1237115.php. Whether those costs are paid by the Port or by federal taxpayers through grants, they are still public costs that exist because of marine terminal operations.
That broader context is important when discussing the future of the peninsula. Many cities have found that public waterfronts often generate greater long-term economic and community value than industrial waterfronts, particularly where cargo volumes are modest. The popularity of the recent World Cup Fan Zone events on the peninsula illustrated the community's appetite for waterfront gathering spaces and the economic potential of that type of public investment.
I will note that although the Port is currently exploring a hotel on the peninsula, that is not the same thing as a public waterfront. While it may include public amenities such as a plaza or restaurant, a hotel's primary purpose is private commercial activity. A truly public waterfront is one designed first and foremost as a destination for the community—a place for gathering, recreation, events, and everyday enjoyment that, in turn, supports the broader downtown economy.
If the Port wants to maximize economic vitality for the community, it should reserve its most valuable waterfront parcels for public access and public life while directing private development to adjacent upland sites. Bellingham has followed this approach by intentionally preserving a substantial portion of its waterfront for parks and public access to reconnect downtown with the shoreline, while accommodating private development elsewhere in the district.
The Port of Olympia should be asking whether the Bellingham model would create greater long-term value compared to filling the peninsula's most valuable waterfront land with private development.
Friday, July 24 Report this
Boatyarddog
RondaLarsonKramer. You understand the BS this port is selling. We the Taxpayers of Thurston County are Sick of the CRAP the Port has been Trying to sell for years.. it is a Losing MONEY business for Decades. Time to let the Marine Terminal Go FOR GOOD. IT IS DONE as a Port Log Shipping Business. CLOSE THE MARINE TERMINAL and then we can reshape this SINKING SHIP.
Friday, July 24 Report this
JnNwmn
Port Commissioners that claim the Marine Terminal supplies jobs should say the Marine Terminal supplies subsidized jobs by Thurston County taxpayers. Where is the tax subsidy listed on this budget? It is listed on your county tax statements. And the Port calls it "revenue". Where are the interest payments listed on the bond debt? The Port Director claims no tax subsidy is used to pay for debt. Isn't that just smoke and mirrors? And don't let me bring up the expensive Port fuel dock that has NEVER paid for its own operation.
Saturday, July 25 Report this
johnvaneenwyk
Why does the Port so consistently hide the true costs of a marine terminal, and disregard the true value of the peninsula for public access? The Port is taxpayer supported, so perhaps there is fear in the Port administration that if the public knew the true costs of the marine terminal (caae in point: the cost of repaving Plum Street to reverse the damage from the heavy traffic of very heavy logging trucks and the cost of more frequent and extensive dredging after the Fifth Avenue dam is removed) the public would simply refuse to pay the taxes that support these losses.
The marine terminal is a dinosaur that should be allowed to rest in peace. Thank you RLK, BYD, and JN for revealing the Port’s compulsive prestidigitation.
Saturday, July 25 Report this
Porter
POO is one big sunk cost fallacy. There's too much invested in it to quit. Weyerhaeuser is dead and gone in most other communities. Let em go. Stop dredging. Stop the tug boats. If it was worth it, wouldn't there be no need for grants and subsidies going on for years.
Saturday, July 25 Report this
Person of Interest
The current commission has ignored the idea of developing the peninsula for public access. Northpoint could be developed into parks and event space like Dune Peninsula Park in Tacoma. Rather than spending money on
illusory progress like electric airplanes and electric ferries they could be designing and developing Northpoint as a destination for the public. The Port Commission has ignored its public advisory commissions recommendations on Northpoint and pretends it has the public’s interest in mind. We need to vote these commissioners out and find commissioners who can work with the public on public access (See Vision 2050).
Saturday, July 25 Report this
Oly1956
The commissioners literally talked about North point being a park/amphitheatre during this exact meeting, yet commenters pretend it didn't happen. The director said the Marine terminal is making money for the Port even after depreciation.
They aren't going to calculate dredging from the army because they don't bill it to the port, and maybe don't even calculate it. Complaints about not adding grant revenue is also silly. If Olympia didn't get the money, another area would. We want money to come here.
Voters can constantly vote out commissioners, but the truth is that the Marine terminal has leases and nothing the current commissioners can do will stop that in the next 4 years.
Demanding elected officials change things they can't is too typical. You want them to break the law?
Saturday, July 25 Report this
BobJacobs
Shame on the JOLT for printing the Port's propaganda.
The role of media is to provide complete and accurate information about public entities.
Financial results "before depreciation" are misleading. Depreciation is an expense, as are other expenses mentioned by other commenters but not included here.
Complete and accurate financials would show that the Port District loses money on its business operations, and especially on the Marine Terminal. This has been the case for the four decades in which I have followed the Port District.
What a shame.
Bob Jacobs
Saturday, July 25 Report this
Oly1956
Bob: "Yilmaz reported the marine terminal generated net income of $1,743,786 before depreciation and $851,593 after depreciation."
You are so set on being anti-port you don't even look at the facts. That is after depreciation. It literally said so.
Let's see some facts from you. You say this is propaganda, if you though the port is lying, prove it. You can't because this is legally required info. You can ask for everything, it's all public record.
Saturday, July 25 Report this
Boatyarddog
Oly1956 This is the same BS the Port has said for Decades, you don't know or care to explore the BS.
They got there Arses handed to them in 2018 for lying to The Public, DOE, and Ligitators about Storm water Clean water ACT violations to the Tax payers that footed the 1.3 Million in Fines to settle the Lies. And Now the BAY IS LIFELESS.
SCREW THE PORT, they've been Lying and screwing the tax payers for Decades. We've changed the Commissioners several times, there using the port to up their political agenda... especially J. Vasavada, What a joke she's turned out to be for the Progressive, Environmental Agenda, WHICH THE BAY NEEDS TO SURVIVE
CLOSE THE MARINE TERMINAL! IT'S A HUGE Lie and FARCE.
Saturday, July 25 Report this
Oly1956
Lisa, no facts, only mentioned the port 5 years ago, none of the commissioners were when there then (all are 3 years or less in the position).
If you want to slander a commissioner, be specific. Tell us what political agenda any of them have WITHOUT being vague or speculating.
The same 5 people post on all these port related articles. Its you guys that are the progogander spreaders.
Sunday, July 26 Report this
Person of Interest
The Port does turn a profit with or without the depreciation calculated. The profit is based primarily on the Marine Terminal operations with the most of the remaining operations being subsidized by the Marine Terminal profits. With the manager of the Marine Terminal skill in turning a profit with developing Suzano as a new client and improving operational profits on each ship coming to the Port. Again none of the Marine Terminal operational profits is due to the Commissioners actions. They are just smart enough to pick up the money that is available. The lion share of the marine terminal benefits are due to the direct marine terminal leadership, longshoremen and Port staff who directly work on the terminal. The number of ships annually that use the Port is extremely small and the concern I have is that this limited activity can be disrupted by outside factors beyond anyone in Olympia’s control ( for example see Tariffs).
Sunday, July 26 Report this
Boatyarddog
Oly1956. Not Propaganda ... TRUTH Read the Lawsuit I'm Talking about. Waste Action of Covington wa VS Port of Olympia, Tacoma District Court 2018 your Commissioners then were, Downing, E.Zita, Mc Gregor, 1.3 million fine for Storm Water Violations. By the Way The Fuel Dock was pushed thru by Downing a boater. You talk about them breaking law? It was done many times back then Ed Galligan was fired Ie. Forced to retire, for buying Log loaders for 3 million, when he was only authorized for 300K. They tried very hard to Hide that, blocked DOE from inspections, because of a broken Treament plant, for almost 10 years. This was all illegal. The District Court Required them to be Monitored for 3 Years that's Known as a Consent Decree, Dirty Deals done with Public Money. Now you expect the Public to believe their BS. You are foolish. We're lucky to have 2 more Commishes to balance out the votes. The Army Corps, cover a portion of the Dredging, Marina Businesses cover a portion, then they bury the spoils at N. Point in Concrete Coffers to rot away and be a problem for Future Generations to deal with. ITS BS.
Sunday, July 26 Report this
jimlazar
It is unfortunate that The Jolt News published Port propaganda without any critical examination of the fallacies in their report.
It is good that revenues are up. But that's only one half of the equation. The other half is expenses.
The Port regularly reports it's "profit" before considering major elements of cost, including depreciation, interest, and dredging costs.
When all costs are considered, the Port consistently loses money on the Marine Terminal. Year after year. $1 million to $3 million in losses per year before counting dredging costs.
The Port also often inappropriately counts the taxes they collect from us as though they are "revenues" when they are out money, not their money and not their tenant's money.
The Port should measure the total investment in the marine terminal:
a) The value of the land (what it could be sold for); a reasonable return of 5% to 10% should be expected on this.
b) The operating expenses incurred by the Port to manage and maintain it;
c) The capital expenses incurred by the port for roads, equipment, lighting and other costs. A reasonable return of 5% to 10% should be expected on this.
d) A full allocation of overhead expenses to each operation, including the costs of the Port management staff, the Port Commissioners, the legal counsel expenses, insurance, office space, and other overhead.
e) The cost of dredging, whether it is paid by the Port (for work next to the terminal) or by the federal taxpayers (for the shipping channel). This cost should be annualized over its expected lifetime at a reasonable return of 5% to 10% per year.
When all of the applicable costs are counted, the marine terminal loses a lot of money. We taxpayers are subsidizing Weyerhaeuser.
Enough is enough. Stop exporting jobs to Asia. Process raw logs at home, put the lumber in containers, and ship it out of the Port of Tacoma container terminal on economical larger ships, not the polluting old ships that come to Olympia.
Monday, July 27 Report this
KEW100
Excellent responses to an article that presents the information as provided by the Port itself.
For those of us not as knowledgeable about the history of the Port, nor about the "costs" and "revenue" that the Port does not include in its reports, it would be GREAT if there was an article submitted to The Jolt outlining these specifics. Preferably not an Opinion piece, but an informative piece that summed up these responses. You are a very impressive group of responders!
Tuesday, July 28 Report this
Boatyarddog
KEW100. Ah hah! The politics at the Port over the 10 plus "rocky" Years I've been watching have been changing mainly due to " in my opinion" changes in Economy, Personally I'd like to see Budd Bay be healthy again. There is Controversy over these subjects. The Port is always Pro business. So conflicted opinions are always here.
Wednesday, July 29 Report this