Commissioners warn Port of Woodland tax‑increment plan could cut county and fire district revenues

Cowlitz County commissioners used much of their March 4 meeting to warn residents and other local governments about a Port of Woodland plan to form a 5,000‑acre tax increment area under Washington state House Bill 1189 (2021).

Commissioners and several public commenters said the port’s proposal would “freeze” the taxable base for affected entities — the county, the City of Woodland and Clark‑Cowlitz Fire & Rescue — and divert future tax revenue growth from those governments to the port for an estimated 25‑year period. A commissioner described the mechanism as “a backdoor tax” and said, “It just looks like theft to me. It’s money grabbing and theft.”

Nut graf: commissioners said the port’s numbers show a substantial multi‑million‑dollar shift in future receipts and urged public awareness and possible legal or political opposition before the port acts to send the plan to the state.

Details and figures: commissioners cited figures presented in the port’s plan. According to those figures, the county’s share of the freeze would be roughly $16 million to county current expense and about $14 million to county roads (about $30 million total), with an additional $30 million of lost bonding capacity; the City of Woodland’s loss was described as about $3 million and Clark‑Cowlitz Fire & Rescue’s loss about $9 million. Commissioners added those impacts could total roughly $70 million across affected local governments. The figures were described in the meeting as coming from the port’s materials.

Commissioners said the port’s proposal does not require approval by the local governments affected or by voters: the port would forward its plan to the state treasurer’s office and a state official could approve it under HB 1189. One commissioner said the port’s internal vote to send the proposal to Olympia was expected in mid‑April and that the county would consider a workshop on March 19 to discuss local responses.

Public comment and infrastructure concerns: members of the public at the meeting and several commissioners said the port’s plan, as drafted, does not commit to funding or improving road access into the proposed area. One public commenter said the plan’s map shows roads the county would still be responsible for maintaining while the county would not receive the incremental revenue during the 25‑year period.

What was not decided: the board took no formal vote on the port proposal at this meeting. Commissioners said they intend to use their “bully pulpit” to inform residents, talk with city councils and consider legal or political options.

Next steps: commissioners said they plan outreach and informational sessions and at least one internal workshop to coordinate county response; they encouraged residents to review the port’s materials and to submit public records or comments so opposition can be part of the record if the port forwards the plan to the state.