August 6, 2013 ·

Fee-In-Lieu for Shoreline Public Access

Tonight the Tacoma City Council will consider a resolution accepting an agreement with the Port of Tacoma to allow for greater flexibility in how the Port meets shoreline public access requirements. 

The agreement, which has been in the works for a while now, will allow the Port to decide whether it will meet shoreline access requirements for new developments on site, or whether it would prefer to write the City of Tacoma a check in lieu of providing that access. The check would go into a devoted fund with the City, to be dedicated to shoreline public access projects.

The fee-in-lieu structure, as included in the agreement, would have the Port pay 2% of the first $10 million in project costs, and 0.5% of any project cost above that $10 million, not to exceed $500,000. This would be for new projects within the first 200 feet from the water.

The agreement between the City and the Port considers both City and Port public access plans, and identifies joint priority projects to be funded with fee-in-lieu dollars, both on and off Port property. 

  • Chinese Reconciliation Park 
  • West Foss Central Park 
  • Waterway Park 
  • Balfour Dock 
  • Schuster Corridor Trail 
  • 11th Street Boat Launch
  • Dick Gilmur Kayak launch 
  • Julia's Gulch & NE Tacoma Trails 
  • Youth Marine Foundation 
  • Other sites as mutually agreed upon by both parties

The fee-in-lieu option gives the Port the choice of transferring public access off its property and closer to where the rest of Tacoma lives, works, and plays. The fees paid would support projects already on the City's to-do list. Is this a case of win-win?

Filed under: Waterfront, Port of Tacoma

3 comments

  • Dan August 6, 2013

    This is an awesome idea! Some of these waterfront projects are very expensive and not always divisible into small pieces that are easier to fund with existing revenues, or with the size of grants that are available. To be able to bank money for developments in places people don't want to visit and combine it with other funding sources will be critical to getting these projects built. Not having to provide access in heavy industrial areas is also going to be better for the Port and safer for people.
  • RR Anderson August 7, 2013

    Heh, yeah port... Just don't fill in any more wet lands,eh? Happy sinking! (climate change victim)
  • Steve August 7, 2013

    This sounds good. But if it allows the Port to unilaterally decide, I wonder. The Port could use its bonding authority to buy its way out of access requirements totally with one time payments which the taxpayers finance, couldn't it?