Cowlitz County commissioners approve bond issuance for PFD conference center phase 1, ask staff to continue interlocal talks

Cowlitz County commissioners on Wednesday approved a motion to authorize the issuance of bonds to fund phase 1 of the Public Facilities District’s conference center project and gave county staff encouragement to continue negotiating an amended interlocal agreement for a possible phase 2.

The vote came after Public Services Director Mike Moss asked the board whether it had given the PFD “the green light” to move forward with bonding and an interlocal agreement; the attorneys had requested a formal motion to proceed. Commissioners approved the bond issuance and stopped short of approving any final interlocal agreement, asking for more detail and safeguards before committing county property.

The action matters because phase 1 funding will allow construction and renovation work centered on the existing event/conference center, including entry improvements and road realignment toward Fifth Avenue. Deborah Gardner, Cowlitz County treasurer, told commissioners the finance committee had recommended issuing bonds and that the PFD is targeting roughly $13,000,000 in bond issuance; county staff said about $8,000,000 would cover the renovation, breakout space and audiovisual upgrades tied to phase 1.

County staff and the PFD described the project as multi-phased. Phase 1 is “center-centric,” including the entryway and renovations to the existing event center; work on the entry is being funded by rural economic development funds and is going to bid soon, staff said. Phase 2 would be a multipurpose facility on a separate parcel across the street that the PFD does not currently control and that would require amending the existing interlocal agreement to grant the PFD authority to expend PFD tax revenue on that property.

Commissioners sought limits before approving any expanded lease or amended interlocal agreement for the property across the street. One commissioner said he supported proceeding on phase 1 bonding but did not want to “tie the hands of future commissioners” by granting indefinite control of county land; another suggested a sunset clause or other conditions to preserve county flexibility. County staff and counsel said Bronson Potter, attorney for the PFD, has been negotiating with the county attorney and that an amended interlocal agreement would be needed if the PFD is to spend funds on property not currently in its lease.

The board voted on a motion to approve issuance of bonds for phase 1; the motion passed. Commissioners also indicated they would encourage continued negotiations on the interlocal agreement and requested to review any proposed amended agreement and lease language before making a final decision. Staff said the PFD expects to start incurring expenses on phase 2 as soon as the coming summer and that the PFD’s timeline for bond issuance targets the fourth quarter of 2026.

Next steps described in the meeting included: county attorneys continuing to negotiate or review amended interlocal language with PFD counsel; staff convening a working session so county and PFD attorneys and staff can be “in the same room” to draft terms; and the board asking for proposed interlocal/lease language that protects county interests (for example, a sunset clause or specific limits on county commitments) before granting final approval.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that approving the bond issuance for phase 1 does not commit the county to phase 2; any amendment to the interlocal agreement or lease for the separate parcel would require a separate, later action by the board.

The board’s approval is limited to the bond issuance authorization; the interlocal agreement remains under negotiation and was not adopted or executed at the meeting.