Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Port Could Choose Not to Pay Its Share on Tunnel

Politics   March 31, 2011 at 7:04 pm Erica C. Barnett

The Port of Seattle’s memorandum of agreement with the state says the Port won’t pay its $300 million share of the tunnel improvements until the tunnel is built (the funding will pay for surface improvements and for tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct once tunnel construction is complete). That’s already known.

But a letter from a port commission member obtained by PubliCola indicates that the Port’s commitment may not be a sure thing—the money could be contingent on the agency’s satisfaction with the project.

In a letter to a constituent this week, Seattle Port Commissioner Gael Tarleton wrote that the Port would not spend any money on the tunnel project until it’s satisfied that “the corridor is working for the manufacturing industrial base of the city.” If the port isn’t happy with the tunnel’s performance, in other words, it won’t come through with the funding it has said it will provide.

Tarleton says that although she doubts “the current Port Commission” would renege on its commitment, a future Port Commission could. “How many elections are there between now and [2016]?” she asked rhetorically.

Additionally, Tarleton says, the Port has no obligation to release a funding plan on any particular schedule. Conventional wisdom among tunnel opponents has been that the Port of Seattle has reneged on its commitment to release a plan to fund its promised $300 million commitment to the tunnel by 2010.

Tarleton says the Port never agreed to a deadline. That view is backed up by Port spokeswoman Charla Skaggs, who says, “We’ve never had a date when we said we’d submit a plan.” However, Skaggs notes that developing a plan for the Port to contribute to the viaduct replacement is Port CEO Tay Yoshitani’s number-one policy goal for 2011, as laid out in his annual Performance Goals and Objectives report.

Tarleton says the Port’s plan is to fund its contribution by setting money aside each year and selling bonds starting around 2016, when the tunnel is finished. She says the Port won’t need to go to voters for a tax increase, as some tunnel opponents have worried.

However, Skaggs says she doesn’t “feel like I can say that [the Port will sell bonds to fund its contribution to viaduct replacement], because the commission hasn’t voted yet.”


  • BlueCollarEnviro

    There goes the last of the contingency fund.

  • Wells

    In other words, if the bored tunnel machine gets stuck mid-bore, a possibility that can’t be ruled out, the port won’t set up a scheme for raising the $300 million. They reserve the right to invest funds otherwise. If Wsdot screws up, screw Seattle.

  • Anonymous

    Oh snap!! Damning if it were true – which of course its not (the anti tunnel crowd is really reaching these days..) It says right in the first paragraph what the money is for: “surface improvements and for tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct once tunnel construction is complete.”

    But don’t let facts get in the way, right? McGinn wouldn’t let that stop him.

  • Anonymous

    That’s only partly true. The part about the TBM is incorrect. The scenario you describe (TBM gets stuck) is covered by $100 million that is included in the current tunnel budget.

    The Port is waiting to see if the entire program meets its obligations, and that the design of the tunnel, H2K, SR 519, West Seattle Viaduct and new Alaskan Way surface street maintain freight mobility.

    This places onus on the City to ensure the new design of the waterfront doesn’t completely ignore freight.

  • Bryan Glynn

    The MOA at III B. 3 reads as follows:

    “The Parties intend to request authorization from the Port Commission for a portion of the Port’s contribution to the AWVSRP as early as possible in 2010.”

    Was this “request” ever made? If so, what was the result? If not, why not?

  • David Sucher

    btw, Erica, is your post about the Port consistent with what Roger Valdez wrote here?
    http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2011/03/31/vote-on-tunnel-may-happen-no-matter-what/

  • Anonymous

    “Tarleton says the Port’s plan is to fund its contribution by setting money aside each year and selling bonds starting around 2016, when the tunnel is finished. She says the Port won’t need to go to voters for a tax increase, as some tunnel opponents have worried.”

  • partial observer

    Yawn…

  • Echo Hill

    That’s a $300 million threat the Port is holding over the heads of the residents of Seattle. Good to know Tarleton is willing to play her role in screwing Seattle, and being the messanger no less. Maybe its time to see if she would like to defend that position in an election.

  • just look at japan

    that $100 M is a pittance… a stuck machine can delay the entire project for 1.5 years and the interest cost alone on the bonds is waaaay more than $100 M. The $100 M is maybe the cost of extraordinary measures to retrieve the machine, fix the cave in, etc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.j.maddux Michaelp

    Let me know when there’s a majority of the Commission saying the same thing, not just one who’s running for re-election.

  • Martine287

    That is really some weird double back flip reverse logic you have going on there.

  • Anonymous

    the truth is that this was done wrong starting ten years ago…..and now the results of a failed process are evident.

    Here’s what should have happened if we had enlightened capable leadership.
    Civic responsibility- build the safest and least expensive option with taxpayer dollars
    option 1- do nothing……safest and cheapest
    option2- surface option…..next safest and cheapest.

    put it to a vote…….either taxpayers pick #1 or #2

    If freighting and development wants a tunnel or something different ok, but they must pay the balance, the taxpayer money is capped out at the cost of whatever choice the picked….1 or 2.

    Done and done.

  • gregoire and the veto

    why wouldn’t the legislature override a governor’s veto of additional legislation sticking seattle with overruns?

    what’s it take, two thirds? three fourths? Seattle only has 15% of the state population so even if everyone one of its legislators voted against override…..

    override wins. Not to mention the law caps the state share anyway and gregoire didn’t veto THAT.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.j.maddux Michaelp

    First, let’s start with some facts:

    Seattle has less than 10% of the state’s population.

    However, the provision doesn’t say Seattle property owners, but Seattle area property owners who benefit from the DBT. That, arguably, goes as far north as the 32nd, and as far south as the 33rd.

    Additionally, I don’t think you’ll find a supermajority of legislators willing to set a precedent of passing off the cost of state highways to “area property owners.” Rep. Seaquist (D-Gig Harbor) makes the argument that Tacoma Narrows required local investment, but there, it was an expansion of a highway, not replacement, complete with capacity reduction, of a failing structure.

    So, it’s not as simple as you’re trying to make it.

  • check, balance.

    um….pointing out a veto can be overidden is fairly simple…..the point that seattle is 10% heightens the override potential….btw haven’t ever heard that the owners affected goes outside seattle proper…do you have some legislators from burien and shoreline saying “ya sure you betcha, this law I voted for? it sticks my own nonseattle constituents with liability for the override.”

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    I would award all Port Directors a 100% salary increase if they could figure out how to use a surface street instead of an expensive tunnel.

    The money would be well spent…and prove they actually have some thinking in them.

  • Godwin

    No smoking gun here, it seems.

  • Neither Pro nor Anti Tunnel

    Yeah I am fairly confused about this. None of the money the Port would appropriate goes toward the tunnel. It’s all mitigation. Seems logical, even for a quasi-government agency. I don’t understand why these basic facts continue to get lost in all the rhetoric.

  • BlueCollarEnviro

    FWIW, I will be voting against any port commissioner who voted to commit this $300 million from property taxes to the tunnel. It’s bad enough we keep getting told that fuel-tax revenue is dedicated to highways (but not by the constitution). Throwing property tax revenue into the tunnel sinkhole is outrageous.

  • Anonymous

    Please nap somewhere else.

  • BlueCollarEnviro

    If the Port has $300 million burning a hole in the agency’s pocket, then a far better way to invest it is to help complete North Link much faster, and shift a significant chunk of commuter trips that have been clogging the region’s most important freight road (I-5).