San Juan County staff to explore federal earmarks for Orcas Landing float and Hunter Bay floats
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County staff told the council they will prepare applications for federal community project funding (earmarks) for the Orcas Landing float and possibly Hunter Bay floats, and will follow up on variable deadlines from congressional offices before returning with recommendations.
County staff briefed the San Juan County Council on federal community project funding opportunities and recommended preparing applications for at least the Orcas Landing float.
A staff member said county staff have heard from the offices of Representatives Larson and Murray and Senator Cantwell about their earmark processes and that each office has different deadlines and funding pools. "So for today, I am seeking a head nod from you all that you would like staff to look into any of these… and if you are supportive of us applying for Orcas Landing float," the staff member said, asking the council for informal support.
Staff described two potential county projects: the Orcas Landing float, for which the county previously requested state funding in the $4,000,000 to $1,000,000 range (the larger figure for full work and the lower for an initial predevelopment phase), and the San Juan Island Transfer Station, which staff said could face a funding gap "somewhere in the $7,000,000 range" if fully expanded. The staff member said the transfer station remains a worthy candidate but recommended holding off while alternative plans are finalized.
Councilors discussed other marine infrastructure candidates. Staff identified Hunter Bay floats as another project that is near 90% design and whose original estimate had been about $700,000; staff said an updated materials-only estimate is closer to $2,000,000, excluding engineering and mitigation costs. Several council members expressed support for applying for Orcas and Hunter Bay; one suggested bundling requests to Representative Larson, who chairs the House Transportation Committee, noting Larson’s office has previously supported projects at scale.
Staff relayed varying deadline dates reported by congressional offices during the meeting. In one explanation staff stated a Larson office deadline had been extended (a fifteenth or sixteenth date was reported) and that Murray’s office application was described earlier as due March 25. Later in the same discussion staff also said "Murray’s is due on the sixth, which is this Friday," indicating the transcript reports inconsistent deadline references; staff said they would make follow-up phone calls to clarify and proceed.
The council did not record a formal motion or vote on the record; staff requested informal support, and multiple members indicated assent in the meeting chat and by spoken agreement. The staff member said they would begin preparing applications and report back to the council with clarified deadlines and recommendations.
The discussion underscored that earmark programs have different application windows and funding pools and that staff will need to match project readiness to each office’s priorities. The council moved on to its scheduled financial review after the conversation.