County officials question port-backed tax-redistribution plan that could redirect local property and sales revenues

County officials and at least one staff member said they are alarmed by a port authority plan described in documents the county has reviewed that would reallocate local tax revenues through a state-level approval process.

A staff presenter summarized the port documents and estimated the plan would redirect roughly $71 million in property-tax revenue, of which the county’s current expense share and other local levies would be reduced by tens of millions of dollars. The presenter said the plan’s materials list roughly $373 million of infrastructure improvements and further projects totaling hundreds of millions more in the port’s development area. He described the proposal as vague on details about how the port would handle ingress and egress and other local bottlenecks.

Commissioners and other attendees said they were upset the plan would not require county or voter approval and would instead be reviewed by the Washington State Department of Treasury (the presenter said the plan “goes to Department of Treasury up in Olympia”). One commissioner summarized the concern: the mechanism “takes from everybody else in the county and redirects it to them,” meaning other local governments could face revenue shortfalls that would need to be made up. Another commissioner said the legislature passed the enabling law and that local representation had mixed votes; the commissioner added that their state senator voted for the measure and also serves as a port commissioner.

Several participants asked for a workshop with the port and state officials; the presenter said commissioners were trying to arrange a local workshop and that two public meetings the port expects to hold were tentatively scheduled for March and April (dates were not specified in the record). Staff said the county planned to oppose the project “as much as we can” and asked to be notified of the port’s public meetings.

Participants noted limits to local legal recourse because the statutes and the state approval process were created at the legislature and because Department of Treasury review could finalize the plan without local board approval. Several speakers urged the county to convene a public workshop to hear directly from the port’s representatives and to coordinate legal and policy responses.

Ending: Staff and commissioners asked for a workshop with port representatives and for notification of the port’s public meetings; board members said they will explore every available administrative and political avenue to oppose or influence the plan and will update the public when further steps are scheduled.