Voters said no by more than 2-to-1 to the Port of Everett’s boundary enlargement measure, declining to be annexed into the port’s district.
The measure would have had residents outside the port’s current boundaries subject to the port’s tax. The port’s pitch was it could spend those tax dollars toward economic growth and environmental restoration projects countywide. The largest of the 75 ports in the state has a countywide footprint.
About 81% of all the county’s registered voters live outside the current port boundaries. In numbers, it’s about 420,431 voters. About 38% cast votes about the port’s boundary measure.
Voters against the idea said on social media the port didn’t provide a clear explanation how the money would be used. The port wasn’t going to begin creating detailed project lists that included the rest of the county until after the election.
The port said in a post-election statement that it “remains committed to its important work as an economic driver for Snohomish County and beyond,” and will work with partners toward that end throughout the region.
A concentrated group of grassroots opponents fought the measure. The Tulalip Tribes launched a whole vote-no campaign.
The Tribes felt residents on its federal land west of Marysville shouldn’t bear a port tax. It asked the port to either be excluded from the boundary enlargement or enter into an agreement that included a tax share provision, the port told the Tribune previously.
Snohomish area resident Morgan Davis fought the measure at the grassroots level.
“I’m not celebrating, but am glad voters saw through the measure,” Davis said post-election. The port didn’t explain its plan and weren’t forthcoming that voting yes for enlargement meant voting to annex into a taxing district, he said.
The group that wrote the con statement issued a statement that opened that “this was a David vs. Goliath struggle against the blatant overreach and bureaucratic excess that the Port was attempting to impose upon the voters.”
Karen Guzak, the head of a political action committee for the port measure, said she was disappointed that the public won’t reap the benefits of the port’s development and environmental restoration funding abilities.
Guzak, a Snohomish City Councilwoman, didn’t write the pro statement. The pro statement in ballot pamphlets was written by Dave Somers, the county executive; Brett Gailey, mayor of Lake Stevens; and Charlotte Murry of the Snohomish and Island County Labor Council.
The port’s current tax rate is 18 cents per $1,000. Its maximum tax rate is 45 cents per $1,000.
Financially, the Port wanted to enlarge its boundaries to enlarge its tax base to access bigger lending opportunities.
Tax income is one portion of a port’s capital budget.
Most capital bonds point to local tax income as the repayment method; school districts and cities do the same. The port has run into being denied for some loans because it has a small tax base of about 125,000 residents in its current boundary, even though the port has enough business income to pay off these loans, Port CEO Lisa Lefeber told the Snohomish City Council in April.
The Port did not develop its long-range capital projects budget with calculations that rely on the measure passing, Port spokeswoman Kate Anderson said.
The Port’s capital budget will decrease, Anderson said. By how much is not clear. The port leverages every $1 in tax revenue to put toward $7 in capital spends.
