Bill Pilkey and Bill McGregor are running for District 2. -}
Port Commission positions are nonpartisan.
Please contact your county office for information on candidates in your area.
1. Sediment along the Port of Olympia berthing docks has some of the highest concentrations of cancer-causing dioxin found in Budd Inlet. Stormwater from the City of Olympia and Port of Olympia property is discharged near these berthing docks. What steps would you recommend to remediate this situation and prevent the ongoing discharge of potentially contaminated stormwater into Budd Inlet/South Puget Sound?
George L. Barner Jr., District 1
After current testing is completed, existing contaminated sediments should be removed and disposed of at approved sites. Stormwater determined to be a source of contamination should not enter the water body and instead go to retention ponds for settling with an approved maintenance and testing regime or if appropriate go to the LOTT wastewater plant for treatment and disposal.
Suzanne Nott, District 1
The stormwater is being discharged through City of Olympia pipes. The connections from the Port drainage to the pipes were issued under "industrial" permits, which do not have the same environmental standards as normal discharge. The stormwater needs to be processed through LOTT, and, if LOTT is not able to handle the volume of water or the nature of the toxins, the Port must work with LOTT to ascertain an acceptable means of resolving the issue. The drainage from the Cascade Pole toxic area, and the pipes themselves, must be examined to ensure that toxins are not entering the inlet from that source. If they are, it must be immediately remediated.
Bob Van Schoorl, District 1
In the mid-1990s the Port began the process to pave the entire cargo yard in the Marine Terminal. This has two primary benefits: to hold down dust and to capture and treat stormwater. The Port has continued this process so that all stormwater in the Marine Terminal will be treated to the required DOE standards. But, the stormwater runoff is not unique to the city's outfall. We have stormwater running into the Deschutes River and Capitol Lake, both of which feed into Budd Inlet. We have stormwater outfalls all around the Inlet. Redirecting and treating stormwater is only one of many issues that must be addresses by a community partnership to clean up and keep Budd Inlet clean. The Port has initiated discussion with other jurisdictions to find a community solution to clean up Budd Inlet and keep it clean.
Bill Pilkey, District 2
According to the longshoremen's union, dioxins around the Port wouldn't even fill a test tube. Realistically, dioxins, PCBs, and other pollutants have been dumped on Port property for many decades; many are considered a hazardous health hazard.
I support the work the late Joe Cole did to bring attention to these public health hazards, and how to clean them up. Port Commissioners have ignored these problems for decades. Now they are considering a Children's Museum and City Hall on land that may contain dangerous pollutants.
As your Port Commissioner, I would vote to place a moratorium on additional construction until all pollutants that present a health hazard have been identified and removed. Next, steps must be taken to prevent further pollutants from entering Port property and adjacent Budd Inlet.
There are many pollution experts in the area upon whom I can obtain input, including Dr. Cat Jenkins, EPA Chief Environmental Toxicologist.
I would work with County Commissioners (Board of Health) to identify other point sources that present a health hazard and try to eliminate them. As a former Research Investigator and Public Health Educator for the state Board of Health, co-author of the State Health Report (having written the chapter on "Environmental Health"), I have a major concern about the impact of pollution on our lives and our planet.
LOTT plans new construction to cost an estimated $1 billion. Some of these funds should be used to clean up polluted areas and sources.
Bill McGregor, District 2.
While I am no expert on this subject matter, dioxins exist naturally in our world. The first step in determining what cleanup action should be considered is to have accurate testing results completed to determine the exact location, what the concentration levels are, and at what depth in the silt are those concentrations, etc. Also, we need to do some type of "fingerprinting" of the dioxins - as there are many different types - all of which are categorized as "dioxin." Once we have that information, then perhaps we can begin the process/discussion of what types are found, where are they coming from, what can we do to prevent it, what is the preferred cleanup method, what is the best cleanup method? We have heard at a commission meeting that bio-remediation has been effective in Japan and that should be explored and evaluated as a potential solution. If we can determine the sources of the dioxins, then we need to explore how to eliminate or reduce further re-contamination.
2. Recent review of the Port of Olympia's financial records shows that revenues have declined for several consecutive years. If expenses of maintaining equipment (depreciation) are factored in, the losses are even greater. As reported in The Olympian, port records show that after depreciation last year (2006) the marine terminal lost $1.3 million. In light of this, what economically sustainable changes or solutions would you propose for the Port? How would this proposal directly benefit local businesses and citizens?
George L. Barner Jr., District 1
The Port needs to partner with the City of Olympia, and leaders in the private and service club sectors to develop a community vision for downtown and the waterfront, including Port and airport properties. The Farmers Market and Percival Landing should be anchor points of diverse and multiple-purpose development including commercial, retail, manufacturing, import/export industries and housing.
It is important for the community to explore our options for commerce and cargo (both import and export) at our port terminal by working hard to identify any and all new manufacturing as well as pre-existing industries that could be potential shippers of product. By concentrating on making the Port operations the cleanest, greenest and most energy efficient of any port, we can regain the good will of the citizenry. Exploring local, regional and tribal products and the new generation of energy-efficient consumer products such as recreational equipment, electronics, appliances, HVAC, heating and cooling could result in claiming a niche market appropriate in size and proportion to our existing facilities.
Through the use of enterprise zones we could foster creative uses of the Port that are more environmentally friendly. A duty-free zone for tourists showcasing local, regional, and tribal products and possible commuter and marine travel opportunities should be explored.
Suzanne Nott, District 1
The Port is actually composed of several enterprises. The Port peninsula, one of those entities, has several enterprises - one of which is the shipping cargo marina - which has not been profitable in over 10 years. I do not believe that the future of the Port of Olympia as a deep-sea marina is feasible. With the rise in fuel costs, there is little to recommend ships' longer voyages to our southern reach. I believe that creative, cooperative planning needs to happen with the Port of Olympia, the City of Olympia, the businesses of Olympia, and, very importantly, the citizens of Olympia, to turn this heart of the city into a healthy public use. The Port's Comprehensive Plan has stated for over 10 years that industrial use and habitation are not compatible. In public meetings, the citizens have recommended again and again uses compatible with the downtown revitalization - and it does not usually include chain hotels and restaurants. There are already viable businesses operating out of the warehouses scheduled for demolition. We should explore what would be needed to keep those businesses (at least one boat building, and at least one wood-products-reuse profitable businesses) in operation. I believe that, as a community, we can examine each of the Port's holdings and find ways that the property could be put to productive, environmentally friendly uses, or held in trust. It would be better to be undeveloped than to be a money loser!
Bob Van Schoorl, District 1
One of the primary goals of the Port has been to expand the business revenues in all four of our business lines. This question fails to take into account that three of the business lines, marina, airport and leased properties, have had steady revenue and positive cash flow increases over the past ten years. Overall, the Port's revenues have increased 36 percent over that time frame.
This question also shows the difficulty in understanding the question of depreciation. Depreciation is not the cost of maintaining equipment as stated. Equipment maintenance is part of our business' cash operating budget. Depreciation is the loss of value of a piece of equipment, a building or infrastructure investment over time. It is a non-cash accounting entry. We all experience depreciation when we buy a new car. It loses value every year. But we don't enter that lost value into our checkbook as some would have the Port do. The Marine Terminal's non-cash depreciation increased $300,000 from 2006 to 2007 due to investments in the Marine Terminal, like new rail.
The Marine Terminal's operating budget is projected to lose $77,000 in 2007 with $1.4 million revenue.
The Port's economic impact analysis shows that we contribute to up to 2,600 jobs in Thurston County with a payroll of about $76 million and $14 million in tax revenue into the economy. Those wages go directly into businesses in Thurston County. The Port should continue to diversify its business base and attract new private-sector investments.
Bill Pilkey, District 2
As a businessman, Certified Financial Planner, and economist, I have been a critic of Port financial policies, cover-ups, financial irresponsibility, and revenue losses.
The Port-operating budget, exclusive of depreciation, lost $800,000 last year. The figure with depreciation is nearer $3 million. Total losses for the Marine Terminal last year are near $3 million with depreciation and its share of overhead.
I estimate that loss to be nearer $1 million this year. Deficits are paid from property taxes (bond proceeds). Commissioners can increase property taxes to fund another estimated $25 million without a vote of the people, so expect these losses to continue unless changes are made.
The Port has experienced 10 years of overrating losses over the last 12 years (excluding depreciation). According to the State Auditor's reports, the Port lost about $31 million, including $26 million in depreciation, and $5 million in basic operating losses, during this period.
Commissioners also exclude (hide) administrative expenses (overhead) from business costs. This allows an exaggerated profit margin when often none exists (e.g. Marine Terminal), made worse when depreciation is included.
The Port Commissioners must regain control of the Port from the staff. The people must be involved in major decision making, including the future they want for the Port, be listened to, and treated respectfully when offering testimony. Operations must become profitable and not continue to rely on taxpayer dollars.
Bill McGregor, District 2
First, the statement of "maintenance of equipment (depreciation)" is not correct. Depreciation is an attempt to spread out the initial cost of a building, etc. onto future periods to match it against its revenue-generating ability. Once fully depreciated the asset still has value. Maintenance of equipment, buildings, etc. is taken from the operation budget - unless a capitalized repair (a new roof for instance) extends the useful life of the item. Regardless, your question is on the marine terminal losses with depreciation factored into the formula. My thoughts on this are: the marine terminal is underutilized due to market conditions and efforts locally to keep this part of the port's "businesses" from moving forward. The marketing team is working hard to "attract" cargo, vessels, etc. to bring revenue producing shipments to the dock. In the last six months, we have discharged two windmill blade vessels, a mining equipment vessel and a Kia vehicle vessel in addition to the vessels loading out logs. I can assure you that staff is working on other vessel/cargo shipments as well. Weyerhaeuser as you know has a contract with the Port to begin export of its logs. While this is a five-year contract with several five-year options to renew, it will provide a huge revenue stream into the marine terminal that will help to turn it around - once we get through the legal challenges on this project. As a Port Commissioner, I support the continued operation of the marine terminal for the foreseeable future.
3. Provide two or three ecological benefits to Budd Inlet with maintaining the Capitol Lake reservoir.
George L. Barner Jr., District 1
Deschutes River sediments settle in the lake and not the nearshore marine environment and the dam provides some flood control and storm surge protection from bacteria and pollutants.
Suzanne Nott, District 1
I have tried and tried to think of any way in which retaining the Capitol Lake reservoir would be ecologically beneficial. Truthfully, either I have not researched enough, or I have a blinding bias, or I'm just uninformed, but I can't think of any. Today, as I stood above the lake, looking at the summer algae that are already beginning to murk up the waters, I was saddened that the decision about returning the Deschutes River to an estuary seems "stuck."
A recent Olympian story about the progress of the estuary restoration of the Nisqually was beautiful. I'm hopeful that it will inspire Olympians to consider doing the same. Here are three things that I immediately thought about.
Bob Van Schoorl, District 1
The Capitol Lake Adaptive Management (CLAMP) Steering Committee has received funding to look at this issue. To date no information is available to identify the ecological benefits of the lake. At this point in time, any ecological benefits that I would attribute to either the lake or estuary would be nothing more than an uneducated guess. As a member of the CLAMP Steering Committee I believe that it would not be appropriate to provide my subjective opinion now but to wait for the studies. I am hopeful the additional study of the lake and the estuary will clarify the issues as we work towards a recommendation.
Bill Pilkey, District 2
The jury may be out for some time before a decision on Capitol Lake is made. Significant study lies ahead. However, it appears the majority wants to maintain the lake as is with some improvements. The cost of restoring the estuary is estimated at $76 million, which means less money for major pollution cleanup and control, or other needs.
Maintaining Capitol Lake would help reduce sediment, which harms Port shipping business. Capitol Lake boat launches would be preserved, as would the Port Marina. An estuary would result in sediment pouring into lower Budd Inlet. Capitol Lake would allow continuance of the use of West Bay and reduce sediment entering into it and Budd Inlet.
Scientists are uncertain about the impact of global warming, but the sea and ocean level forecast estimates keep changing to sooner rather than later, and considerably higher, than earlier forecasts. Three feet may be a dream, and higher than 20 feet a likely nightmare.
Bill McGregor, District 2
Commissioner Bob Van Schoorl is the Port Commission representative on the CLAMP (Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan) and has been on that committee for some time. From what I understand, it is the expert opinion that an estuary will improve the water quality, will allow for bio-absorption of nutrients before entering the inlet and improve fish habitat. Leaving it as it has been for 30-plus years means that the silt that once flowed from the river into the inlet is captured in that area and reduces the need to do continuous dredging of the harbor. This has a huge impact on the marinas/recreational boating in that area of Budd Inlet. The inlet has not had to be dredged since the lake was formed. I also understand that the economical impact is around $70 million to turn it back to an estuary - where will that money come from?
4. Provide two or three ecological benefits to Budd Inlet with a restored Deschutes Estuary.
George L. Barner Jr., District 1
A larger mixing zone of fresh and saltwater in the nearshore habitat of the inlet with the river would be created, increased diversity of species and higher quality habitat for fish and wildlife.
Suzanne Nott, District 1
The other night, on the shores of Capitol Lake, I saw a bald eagle and I was enthralled. I was thinking, "Maybe this is one of the good things about the lake." But when I took the thought to logical conclusion, I was thinking about how, when I go to the Nisqually refuge, I see eagles that are strong and healthy, and plucking salmon right out of the free-running river. And the salmon are happier and healthier for the running water. With the outcry about the endangered native salmon, I have to ask, would not the removal of that Capitol Lake dam help restore a healthy estuary that will benefit the salmon?
Testing of the sediment in Capitol Lake does not reveal high levels of dioxins. While the Port is urging dredging of the shipping channel to enable larger ships, I can't help but believe that the healthier option would be to open the Capitol Lake dam and let the sediments flow out to add a layer of protective coating to cap the toxins.
Arguments about smell and insects have been used to discourage removing the dam and returning the lake to an estuary. I am a mosquito magnet. When I visit my friend on Henderson Inlet, mosquitoes do not besiege me. When I stroll along the shores of Capitol Lake in the evening, I'm constantly swatting at the mosquitoes and by morning I have lots of itchy welts. When I visit Henderson Inlet, I smell seawater and the plants (some decaying) that are part of the ecosystem. It does not stink. The run-off of lawn-greening fertilizers and faulty septic systems pump nutrients into the waters of some areas (like the Deschutes waterway) that cause algae blooms. When stopped up by a dam, this stuff grows and smells. If the dam were removed, the free-flowing Deschutes River would have the opportunity to cleanse itself, hopefully restoring a healthier environment for the salmon who return to spawn and for those of us who cherish the idea of rivers where we could let our kids swim.
Bob Van Schoorl, District 1
The Capitol Lake Adaptive Management (CLAMP) Steering Committee contracted for two reports to answer this question. Neither has provided any conclusive evidence of ecological benefits. Both reports recommend further study in both the area of biodiversity and habitat. The "Net Social and Economic Analysis" study says, "A restored estuary may improve fish and wildlife habitat, increase fish and wildlife populations." I think that most of us believe that different wildlife habitat will exist with a restored estuary, mostly with the types of birds visiting the estuary. The "Biological Conditions Report" lists the type of estuarine communities that might recolonize a restored estuary. These include bulrush and arrowgrass; burrowing crustaceans, mud shrimp and clams. Additional study of these benefits is necessary so that the CLAMP Steering Committee can make an informed recommendation. Again I am hopeful for additional study on this issue.
Bill Pilkey, District 2
Several ecological benefits to the estuary exist, although actual benefits remain uncertain until better cost estimates are available next year. Much has changed since 1951 when the lake was "created." It is doubtful an accurate comparison of what was then, and what might be now, can be made.
Fish, fowl, and wildlife habitat would be improved. Water quality (dissolved oxygen levels) might improve. Whether the odor can be controlled is up in the air. Whether the public will have as much access to the area needs to be studied. I used to canoe on Eld Inlet and remember the mud flats at low tide; also saw them from U.S. 101.
Bill McGregor, District 2
Please see Question 3 response.
5. What book or government report would you find on your nightstand?
George L. Barner Jr., District 1
What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running America and What You Can Do About It, by Melissa Rossi.
Suzanne Nott, District 1
What reading material is on my nightstand? Usually various types of escape literature - not uncommonly, nature books, and cookbooks. Sometimes religious stuff. Rarely scientific reports. Never political hype.
Bob Van Schoorl, District 1
My night-time reading is mostly lighter reading since during the day I read a considerable number of technical reports and management articles. The last non-fiction book was the excellent 1776 by David McCullough. Currently I am reading two books by George R.R. Martin, a science-fiction writer. The latest Harry Potter is next on my list if I can wrestle it away from my daughter.
Bill Pilkey, District 2
You will find on my nightstand a pen, pencil, and paper upon which to write down innovative thoughts, and basic plans that may come when one is sleeping. My bedroom is for relaxation and sleep. There are no books or reports on my nightstand.
My reading materials include health reports, financial and retirement planning data, Port reports, and recreational material.
Bill McGregor, District 2
The "book" at my nightstand would be the Port's Budget/Financial Reports.
----
| Port Commission candidate Bill Pilkey discusses issues at July 25 Port Open-Mike event, hosted by candidate Suzanne Nott. Photo by Janine Gates |
| Port Commission candidate George Barner listens to a question at the July 25 Port Open-Mike event, sponsored by Public Funds for Public Purposes. Photo by Janine Gates |
| Port Commission Candidate Suzanne Nott listens to local activist Sue Danver at July 25 Open-Mike event about port issues. Photo by Janine Gates |
Back to Home page.
