Cost estimates for the various Langley marina access project options are not expected to be part of an upcoming public meeting this month.

The hope is to highlight various designs and possibilities, but providing financial details for all of the 10 alternatives simply isn’t feasible, according to Langley Director of Community Planning Michael Davolio.

“I think they’ve had a an awful lot of time to gather some of that information. If they don’t have that, that’s a problem.”

Sharon Emerson,

Langley resident

“It’s our goal to be able to inform the public about all the options we’re considering,” Davolio said in an interview Thursday at City Hall.

The city has planned a charrette, a stakeholders meeting with residents, business owners and marina users, to present options April 14. It is a departure from earlier momentum in 2014 when the city was looking into the construction of either a funicular to move up and down the Cascade Avenue bluff or a bridge and elevator. Any bluff-side option will likely need a private partner because the city does not own any property at the base to connect to Wharf Street.

The city secured $500,000 in grant funding years ago to improve access to the marina, though the initial project was to widen Wharf Street. The basic idea is create an alternative means of accessing the marina in case of an emergency, such as the March 2013 landslide.

Since being hired in January, the planner was thrust full-speed into city affairs including the marina access project, updating the city’s Comprehensive Plan, creating food truck rules, writing a request for proposals for the possible sale of a city-owned building and property, on top of other day-to-day duties of the one-person office.

Concerning the conveyance project, some of the options have “firm” estimates, while others do not. Rather than provide information for a few and not the rest, Davolio said he did not want to give the impression that the city was favoring one possibility over another at this time.

One Langley resident who has questioned the city’s course on this project for months said she disagreed, and that the city should have costs by now.

“I think they’ve had an awful lot of time to gather some of that information,” said Sharon Emerson. “If they don’t have that, that’s a problem.”

Davolio said narrowing down the list of options will help him divert time to more accurately outline how four options would operate. That also allows for the projects to go through the public vetting process via the planning board.

“I don’t want to give anyone the impression we’re ramming through any one option,” he said.

The meeting’s format follows the recommendations of the Langley Planning Advisory Board, which met Wednesday to discuss the agenda.

Mayor Fred McCarthy, who has mostly backed away from the process in the wake of criticism directed at his support of the project, said he backs Davolio and the PAB for going through the process. He had no intention of asking them to change the format to include costs or a public vote.

“I’m not going to recommend anything different because I want the PAB and Michael to work this process through,” McCarthy said in a phone interview Friday afternoon.

The grant funding, issued through the Island County Council of Governments, comes with stipulations that may restrict which projects can be built. According to state law, RCW 82.14.370 (3)(a), the grant can only be used to finance public facilities serving economic development purposes in rural counties or for economic development office staff. “Facilities,” meaning a permanent structure, may be the key word. According to Davolio, it may mean that the half-million dollars already approved for Langley’s use to improve the connection can’t be used for any vehicles such as a trolley, bus, shuttle or electric golf carts. Effectively, if the city were to choose one of those options, it would have to find funding elsewhere and would walk away from $500,000.

“There would be other financial challenges,” Davolio said.

Further complicating the issue, the grant funding can be used for projects listed in the city’s Capital Facilities Plan: the funicular and a bridge and elevator.

Another major change in the format of the meeting from earlier reports is that a public vote or informal ballot will not occur. After the city’s planning board meeting, its members agreed to not seek any kind of large group vote. Instead, members decided to gather information from small groups at several tables.

“This is a complex issue that involves funding, view impacts, people with disabilities … personally, I don’t see a vote as an adequate way to evaluate all those issues,” Davolio said.

The mayor sat in on the planning board’s meeting and agreed with the main reason for not having a vote or poll. He said putting citizens on the spot by asking them to decide on the options, when some may be hearing about them for the first time, was unfair.

Emerson, who also attended the planning meeting, said she saw the exclusion of a vote as a way to avoid confronting overwhelming opposition.

“They don’t want to know it so clearly that they have to give up any particular idea,” she said. She did, however, agree with some of their concerns about not letting the discussion become overly negative.

“The reason things are getting negative is people’s frustration that they’re not being heard,” she said. “To have a meeting once again where they’re not going to have their voice heard really clearly after speaking as a group will lead to more anger.”

Discussion about a deadline for the start of construction tied to the grant remains vague, though Davolio said he did not think it would expire by June 30, the end of the state’s fiscal year. That means the city has time to go through its full planning process. Once Davolio reviews some of what he considers are the preferred alternatives at the meeting, he’ll sketch those out in greater detail — including details such as construction and ongoing maintenance/operation costs. It will then go to the planning board for public meetings. From there, the group will make a recommendation that’s forwarded to the city council for further input and eventual approval.

“If there’s a solution other than do nothing, I’d like to do it sooner rather than later,” he said.