Works in Progress invited the 4 Port Commission candidates, Krag Unsoeld, Jerry Toompas, Bob Iyall and Anthony Hemstad, to answer 3 questions. We only received responses from Krag Unsoeld and Jerry Toompas, which are below.
1. The Port dredges to remove toxic sediments and to maintain the shipping lane for freighters. As federal dollars become scarce, how will the Port pay for this dredging?
Response from Krag Unsoeld
Federal dollars are not the only source of funding that is coming into short supply. State grant dollars are also going to decline because of state budget shortfalls. This could get worse depending upon what happens with the economy. This means that dredging is going to have to be paid for by the Port. The Port will need to take on debt by selling bonds. These bonds will be paid for out of a combination of property tax collection and Port revenue. Ideally, the Port revenue could come from a shipping fee levied on freighters that come into the Port.
Dredging shipping channels primarily benefits the corporations that import or export through the Port of Olympia. The need for periodic dredging is a given due to sediments being deposited into the shipping lanes. Research needs to be done to estimate how much to charge shippers to effectively raise money to pay for the dredging. Money collected in this fashion would be placed in an interest bearing account to minimize the user fee.
Response from Jerry Toompas
With federal funds for dredging becoming unreliable, the Port needs a sustainable financial model that protects local taxpayers. My approach is twofold: First, I will pursue cost-sharing agreements with the corporate tenants and shippers who directly benefit from a clear shipping channel. It’s a matter of fairness that these businesses contribute their share to maintain the infrastructure they rely on. Second, we must proactively seek alternative funding streams, including state infrastructure grants and regional partnerships, to diversify our revenue and lessen the burden on local taxpayers.
No dredging should begin without a transparent, publicly-vetted plan for the safe handling and disposal of toxic materials. Every time we dredge, more toxic chemicals are released from decades of Port pollution. Environmental safety and fiscal responsibility must go hand-in-hand.
2. The Port peninsula is primarily used for log shipping and storage, the marina and boatyard, and some businesses and offices. The Port currently loses money from its shipping operations. What improvements or alternatives for the log shipping and storage area do you propose?
Response from Krag Unsoeld
The Port is not the sole recipient of economic losses from log exports. Exporting logs is equivalent to exporting jobs. Timber being harvested in the U.S. should be milled in the U.S. This will decrease the environmental impact of consuming fuel to ship the logs to foreign countries while we import milled lumber. We must embark on a long-term program of recovering the milling capacity that has been lost. The Port’s role in helping facilitate this is to move away from continuing contracts with customers exporting logs.
Other options to earn money from the Port peninsula are to create a living museum of the Salish Sea. There are three components to this museum: tribal, environmental, and maritime. This would serve as a recognition of the tribal history in the southern Salish Sea. It would guide visitors through the vegetation and fauna that comprise our ecosystem. It would also document the developments and changes in maritime history beginning before the arrival of European settlers.
There are many examples of similar museums along the coasts of Washington and Oregon. It would be an excellent way to attract tourists. There would also be an opportunity for small, independent businesses to establish themselves to serve these tourists. The museum would provide job opportunities for tribal historians, environmental scientists, and maritime historians.
Response from Jerry Toompas
The log yard sits on some of the most valuable public waterfront land in Thurston County, yet it continues to operate at a financial loss. Taxpayers are funding capital investments that prop up this operation, with little return to the community. That’s not acceptable. This land should generate real public benefit, not subsidize out-of-state corporate profits. The Port should explore other shipping and redevelopment options that provide a stronger return for taxpayers, create stable local jobs, and keep economic gains circulating within our county.
My vision is to transition this area into a diversified, revenue-generating hub while, in the short term, maintaining a sustainable level of shipping that correlates with our values. This includes attracting businesses in clean-tech manufacturing and light industry, and creating a mix of uses that provide stable, year-round jobs. We also need to invest in our community: waterfront access, parks, and family friendly avenues will bring tourism and general community benefit.
3. The Olympia Regional Airport provides opportunities for the Port to benefit the citizens of Thurston County. What mix of businesses and operations would best use the airport for this outcome?
Response from Krag Unsoeld
The Olympia Regional Airport has a significant amount of land both within the fence around the airport and the commercial/industrial lands surrounding it, including New Market. The Federal Aviation Administration requires that the airport continue to provide services to the existing customers. However, there are other things that can be done that would benefit Thurston County residents.
First, the future of aviation will become electric powered. The open and unshaded lands that are part of the airport are an ideal site for a solar electricity farm. Installation of solar panels can be done without harming pocket gophers. The Port needs to partner with a solar power developer and a utility to sell the power that is produced.
Second, the properties around the airport can be used to attract independent businesses. The Port could make a choice about what types of business they would like to encourage. For instance, an request for proposal (RFP) could be developed calling for climate change response businesses to locate here. These could be home weatherization, heat pump sales installation, residential and business energy audits, and planning eco-friendly, sustainable gardens for families and businesses to feed themselves.
The examples provided above would all make the Olympia Regional Airport benefit a much wider selection of the residents in Thurston County. The Port of Olympia collects taxes from all Thurston County residents. It should provide services that benefit them all as well.
Response from Jerry Toompas
The Olympia Regional Airport should serve as an economic engine for our community, not a hub for large-scale passenger or cargo operations.
My goal is to develop a focused aviation and technology center that benefits Thurston County residents. The airport should continue to host flight schools, technical training programs, and emergency services, while preserving small-scale community use. We must also prepare for the next generation of aviation by investing in electric aircraft and sustainable infrastructure.
This approach will create high-skill, family-wage jobs that strengthen our local economy while keeping the airport aligned with community values. By supporting workforce training, green-tech innovation, and small-scale aviation services, we can generate economic growth without the noise, traffic, and environmental harm of large commercial expansion.
Be First to Comment