Press "Enter" to skip to content

Olympia Port Commissioners rely on lobbyists for a key financial commitment


The Port of Olympia in July approved a proposal to develop almost 200 acres of land on its New Market Industrial Campus (NMIC). The new Panattoni Lease Option Agreement (Panattoni Agreement) is fraught with potential negative impacts on the community. There are financial, environmental, public health, school safety, and other quality of life issues at stake. However, in light of the tremendous financial strains that will be experienced by public agencies due to the Covid pandemic, financial considerations, including the level of public subsidies to private interests, are of paramount importance.

Taxpayers assigned a big bill

With respect to the Panattoni Lease Option Agreement, the chief public financial exposure lies in the area of Habitat Mitigation costs with estimates ranging from $70,000 to $100,000 per acre. The who and how these expenses were to be borne was of critical importance to the public interest, but ultimately did not play a significant role in consideration of the proposal. Without due diligence and consideration, Commissioners Bill McGregor and Joe Downing decided that the public, not the developer, should pick up the entire bill of up to $20 million. Given the operating ethos at the Port, and its dismal record, it appears that the public has taken on Panattoni Development as its newest financial dependent.

…it appears that the Economic Development Council is a nexus of conflicts of interest.

How did we get here?

It appears that the fast-tracked Panattoni Agreement hurtled like a run-away train to approval at the Port of Olympia’s July 13 meeting. Despite the numerous public comments outlining its flaws, two commissioners decided to throw caution to the wind and approve the lease. Contrary to statements that the agreement represents only an option, the Commissioners’ approval pulled a trigger that will tie the Port and the public to this financial arrangement for decades.

Instead of taking time to fully understand the financial and environmental implications of the draft contract, especially in light of concerns raised by Tumwater Mayor Pete Kmet, Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Zita, chose to ignore all considerations other than cash flow.

A civic Tale of Two Letters—community-based values vs lobbyist’s influence

The community values approach.

A letter by Mayor Kmet clearly set out the issues, values and concerns of the Tumwater community. His letter serves as an exemplar of community-focused governance. It is practical in that it recognizes needs for the economic future of Tumwater. However, it places quality-of-life in the forefront of importance.

Kmet succinctly expresses concerns about large warehouse developments: “Large distribution warehouse uses consume large parcels of land, typically generate a lot of semi-truck traffic, offer lower job density, and generate less tax revenue per acre than other higher value uses.”

As the City of Tumwater is the part of Thurston County that will be most affected by the Port’s decision, the Commission should have been very deliberate by using a high degree of due diligence to protect the quality of life for those residents. They deserve nothing less.

The lobbyist-influenced approach.

At the Commission’s June 22 meeting, Michael Cade, Executive Director of the Thurston Economic Development Council (EDC), spoke strongly in favor of the proposed Panattoni Agreement. He also submitted a letter of that date putting forth an economic rationale for the warehouse deal. [See box on page 11] Unlike other written public comments, Cade’s letter is not shown on the Port’s website but was made available only via a public records request.

Cade’s letter asserts that the Panattoni large warehouse development would create 942.5 full-time jobs. Contrasted with this rosy, pie-in-the-sky picture is economic data that suggests large warehouses produce on average two jobs per acre at $16 per hour. Therefore, the validity of Cade’s assertions must be viewed with extreme skepticism—as is shown by a disturbing chain of circumstances involved in this economic claim.

A nexus of conflicts of interest

Based on information, both in plain sight and from a public records search, it appears that EDC is, in effect, a nexus of apparent conflicts of interest:

  • Port of Olympia Legal Counsel Heather Burgess is a Board member and President-Elect of EDC. As port counsel, she has oversight for Port contracts. Her law firm, Phillips Burgess Law, PLLC is the named attorney representing the Port of Olympia on the Panattoni Agreement.
  • Port Commissioner Bill McGregor is a Board member of EDC. He was one of the two deciding votes on the lease option contract.
  • Evan Parker of Kidder Mathews is a Board member of EDC. He and Amy Evans served as the lead real estate brokers on this project. Per sec. 25.1 of the contract as proposed, Kidder Mathews will represent the Port upon the execution of the Agreement, and subsequent Ground Leases, and be entitled to all commissions.

A separate agreement between the Port and Kidder Mathews is to be signed upon execution of the Panattoni Agreement. Thus, Mr. Parker has a significant vested interest in the string of commissions payable to Kidder contingent on the deal being consummated.

The proponents of the lease option based their case in large part on EDC Cade’s letter of June 22, 2020. At first blush, it is apparent that his letter contains an overly optimistic assessment of benefits. A closer look, based on a public records search, produces a more disturbing picture. These questions arise: What was the basis of evaluation in Cade’s letter, and what were the circumstances leading up to it?

  • Amy Evans of Kidder Mathews at the June 22 Commission meeting expressed strong support for the Panattoni Agreement. What she failed to disclose in that comment was her material financial interest. This failure to disclose shows a disturbing lack of candor.

Ms. Evans, who has a material interest, was instrumental in the construction of the economic benefit claims cited in Cade’s letter. Ms. Evans set up the valuation process by connecting Mr. Cade with David Toyer of Toyer Strategic Advisors. On June 12, 2020, she sent an email with the subject line “Panattoni” to both Michael Cade and David Toyer stating: “Michael [Cade]: David [Toyer] will be a good one to work on economic impact analysis of the Tumwater Panattoni project.”

  • The question then became:
    Who is David Toyer, and what financial interests does he have with any of the material parties to this deal? It appears that Toyer has a close financial tie to Panattoni Development.

On the website of Toyer Strategic Advisors, the only client listed and showcased is Panattoni Development. Thus, it appears that an agent of Panattoni was given the job of setting the rationale for economic development benefits for the Tumwater project. It would appear that any valuation opinion from Toyer would fail the test for arm’s-length objectivity.

The public on the hook for decades?

The economic benefits asserted by EDC clearly are based upon data from a biased source. Arguably, the input from EDC should have been entirely discounted and rejected from consideration. In turn, that the benefits claimed were based on questionable assertions cast a shadow over other representations, and raised the question of lease rate adequacy especially in the face of a potential $20 million in mitigation costs. If those provisions should prove inadequate, the public will be on the hook for decades.

Denis Langhans is a retired corporate executive who holds a PhD in the humanities. He has been observing governance and accounting practices at the Port of Olympia for several years.

The story behind the “rad” benefits of a warehouse project


  1. Jana Wiley September 6, 2020

    Denis, thank you for this clearly written, and troubling bit of news. What can be done at this point? Can we collectively refuse to pay for this latest boondoggle?
    One cannot make this kind of story up…how far and wide can we spread it?

  2. Shari Silverman September 12, 2020

    Denis, excellent explanation of this issue. The two commissioners voting in favor of the Panattoni deal ignored all public input. My question is: Why? What’s in it for elected officials Downing and McGregor that would have them go against so many voters’ wishes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Mission News Theme by Compete Themes.
In a document addressing questions about the Panattoni Lease Option,…