Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cowlitz County commissioners warn Port of Woodland tax‑increment plan could divert local revenues
Summary
Commissioners raised objections to the Port of Woodland’s plan to form a tax‑increment financing area under House Bill 1189 (2021), saying a proposed 5,000‑acre, 25‑year district would freeze base tax revenue for local governments and divert increases to the port, with county staff and commissioners citing multimillion‑dollar impacts.
Cowlitz County commissioners on March 4 discussed a Port of Woodland proposal to form a tax‑increment area under House Bill 1189 (2021), warning the designation could divert future tax receipts from the county, the city of Woodland and local fire protection service to the port for up to 25 years.
Commissioners said the port’s proposal covers roughly 5,000 acres in the Woodland area and that, under the tax‑increment mechanism, the assessed value for affected taxing districts is effectively frozen at the time of designation; any increase in tax revenue above that frozen base would go to the port to finance development. The board discussed projected revenue impacts the port supplied during its planning materials.
According to figures the county described as coming from the port’s materials, the port’s projection would reduce county receipts by about $16 million to current expense and about $14 million to county roads — roughly $30 million in direct tax receipts — and would further reduce the county’s bonding capacity by an estimated $30 million. The port’s numbers also showed “just under $3,000,000” in reduced receipts to the City of Woodland and approximately $9,000,000 in reduced receipts to Clark‑Cowlitz Fire & Rescue. A county official present summarized combined impacts to Clark‑Cowlitz Fire & Rescue and other prior port districts as roughly $70,000,000 in lost revenue across multiple actions.
The chair of the board framed the proposal as a tax shift the county and other local entities would not vote on. “These districts can be set up. They don’t require a vote of the entities they affect,” the chair said, adding, “This is basically a backdoor tax. It just looks like theft to me.” The board discussed outreach plans and scheduled or contemplated local workshops to inform residents; the chair said the county has been meeting with the Woodland and Castle Rock city councils and expected a county workshop on March 19.
Commissioners also raised infrastructure concerns. One commissioner noted the port’s plan includes little discussion of how the county would fund or maintain roads that serve the development, saying county taxpayers could be liable for maintenance while incremental tax receipts flow to the port. Another speaker noted that the port’s proposed spending authority would be restricted to the 5,000‑acre area and would not directly pay for broader access improvements outside the district.
No formal county vote on the port’s plan occurred; commissioners said the port will transmit its package to the State Treasurer and that a state official authorizes formation under HB 1189. The chair said the port planned an April vote on sending its package to Olympia, and the county planned further public outreach. Commissioners said they expect to pursue whatever administrative and public‑information avenues are available to oppose or influence the port’s application.
