Cowlitz commissioners approve bonding for PFD conference-center Phase 1; interlocal talks to continue

The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday approved issuing bonds to fund Phase 1 of a Public Facilities District (PFD) conference-center project and agreed to let county attorneys continue negotiations with the PFD on a possible amended interlocal agreement for a separate Phase 2 property discussion.

County Public Services Director Mike Moss told commissioners the PFD’s finance committee had recommended issuing bonds and the county attorney asked whether the Board had given the PFD the “green light” to move forward with Phase 1 and with bonding work. "The county's attorney reached out to our office asking, if we had received the blessing yet from the board of county commissioners to move forward with phase 1 and the funding, bonding for the project over at the PFD board or the PFD," Moss said.

The nut graf: the board approved bonding authority for Phase 1 — work focused on the existing conference center, including renovations, breakout space and audiovisual upgrades — while stopping short of approving any final interlocal change that would add a separate parcel across the street for a future multipurpose facility.

Moss and Cowlitz County Treasurer Deborah Gardner described Phase 1 as largely conference-center–centric and said some entry and road realignment work already has rural economic-development funding and is going to bid. Gardner told the board the finance committee recommended issuing approximately $13 million in bonds that they expect to go to market in the fourth quarter of 2026. "When they came to us, it was approximately $13,000,000 that they want to have the bonds issued for," Gardner said.

Commissioners and staff described Phase 2 as a separate potential multipurpose facility on property not currently covered by the existing interlocal agreement. Commissioners expressed caution about committing county control of property without seeing clear contract language, possible sunset clauses and how rental revenue would be handled during any lease or agreement term. "Phase 1 does not commit us to Phase 2," a commissioner said during the discussion.

A motion was made and seconded to approve issuance of bonds for Phase 1; the chair called the vote and commissioners answered "Aye." The record does not show individual roll-call names for the vote. The board also indicated that staff and the PFD have the board’s encouragement to continue drafting and negotiating an amended interlocal agreement and lease so long as the board will have the opportunity to review any final document before the county commits to property terms.

County staff and commissioners requested that any draft interlocal agreement make clear it would not permanently or permanently irrevocably convey or commit county property without explicit board approval and recommended exploring sunset language and revenue-accounting provisions. Treasurer Gardner and other staff said they had not yet seen all proposed lease language for Phase 2 and want that language flushed out before formal county approval.

What happens next: staff will work with the PFD and the county attorney on an amended or new interlocal agreement for the Phase 2 property; before issuance of bonds the county will need to complete further approvals and documentation. The board’s vote authorizes the county to provide bonding capacity for Phase 1 now; the board did not adopt or sign any interlocal amendment during the meeting.