The city first received a Rural Economic Development grant in 2005 from Island County for $242,423 to widen Wharf Street and better connect the Langley marina and the City of Langley. For six years thereafter the grant funds remained unclaimed and the economy declined significantly at the end of 2007.

In 2012, as the economy rebounded, the city requested and was granted a change of direction in the grant to a funicular concept. The late Paul Schell then offered in 2013 that if the city would consider a public/private partnership, he would cover the excess costs of an elevator and bridge if, as anticipated, it would cost more than the grant funds available. In 2013 also the city asked Island County for $257,577 more funding and added options of either an elevator and bridge or a funicular to promote economic development and link the marina and the city. The current grant set aside for the city is for a total of $500,000 to fund one of these two options.

There have been some letters to the editor in the South Whidbey Record for and against each one of these options for a variety of reasons. The decision of what type of conveyance will emerge as the best one for Langley and its citizens is a very important one. The conveyance decision should be supported by a majority of the citizens and be the best possible solution for moving mobility-challenged individuals and boaters with their gear in sufficient numbers to be both a safe and efficient form of transportation.

The city is taking a step back from these options, looking at the needs, and considering options for addressing the needs. A Rural Economic Development Grant requires a capital project listed in the city six-year capital project plan, an economic development project and a project that promotes employment in the city. As the marina has been expanded it has prompted more use and generated more revenue for the port. Recently the city has received a letter from Clipper Vacations requesting conveyance assurances for planned arrival trips this spring. One suggestion is that we consider all viable alternatives and not be tied to a past idea or move too quickly to implement a current one to preclude losing the allocated funding. The current list of suggested alternatives include:

1. Widening Wharf Street

2. Funicular

3. Elevator and Bridge

4. Electric Golf Carts

5. A trolley on tires

6. A trolley on tracks

7. A moving sidewalk

8. A mini-train on wheels

9. No means of conveyance

Some suggest the list is too long and includes unrealistic alternatives that should be eliminated immediately. Others suggest the city is dragging its feet and should build the funicular now rather than lose the funding. Others have expressed a hope that we might consider a couple of these alternatives. We are working with our new community planner who wants to conduct a very public process with data, information, presentations, and pictures of the alternatives for public comment.

In the final analysis, whatever we do will be research based, data driven, public involved and well planned.

Sincerely,

Fred