Screen Reader Mode Icon
This week's City Council meeting will start at 5:00 p.m. on Monday and will be hybrid with remote participation via Microsoft Teams and in-person participation at Council Chambers. To join the live event remotely, you can find the link on the City's website:  www.CityOfFerndale.org

Members of the public participating remotely are encouraged to submit written comments to City Clerk Susan Duncan by emailing SusanDuncan@cityofferndale.org. Comments received prior to 4:00 p.m. on Monday will be included in the meeting record.

Ferndale City Council actions have major impacts on our community. Yet participating in our government isn’t always easy. I am committed to seeking out your input because I firmly believe your voice adds value. Please read my current position and let me know if you agree, disagree, or have a better idea. It is essential that you know that my position can be influenced by your responses. I will combine this information with all other information available to me (public comments at the Council meeting, City Staff input, etc.) before I make my final decision. Thank you!

Ryan O'Larey - Ferndale City Council Position 5

A few ground rules before you get started:

1. Be kind, be respectful, be honest, and be concise.
2. Do not participate if you are a Ferndale City Council member.
3. I will not create surveys for quasi-judicial issues (for legal reasons).
4. Survey responses may be subject to FOIA requests, but will otherwise remain anonymous.

Question Title

* 1. I live: (Select the best option for your situation.)

Question Title

In the next question we will be talking about the Friberg annexation area. This area is shown below and is located just North of the Horizon and Eagleridge schools.

In the next question we will be talking about the Friberg annexation area. This area is shown below and is located just North of the Horizon and Eagleridge schools.

Question Title

* 2. Friberg Annexation Consideration (LINK):

Council will host a public comment to gather feedback from the community on this proposed annexation of approximately 110 acres of farm land. The annexation process doesn't guarantee that anything will be developed on the land, but the expectation from the annexation application is that up to 550 new single family homes could eventually be built. The City would not be responsible to initial infrastructure costs. These are paid for by developers. After they are built however, the responsibility for maintenance and replacement fall on the City. The economic analysis shows that the City would receive positive revenues through about 2040 primarily due to sales taxes from initial construction of houses. After that time, the area will be a net negative revenue generator (meaning the City will lose money every year into the future). It's long been known that residential areas like this lose money for cities, however they continue to be built. Largely, the reason why annexation for single family housing occurs is because there is a demand for that housing type and cities feel a short-term obligation to provide space for it, even with a known long-term financial detriment. My general thoughts toward annexations is that cities should change their annexation processes to ensure that they aren't knowingly accepting a net negative development pattern, while at the same time providing various housing option. I cannot express a specific opinion for this annexation decision until after the public hearing, but I do intend to consistently apply my annexation logic to all annexation petitions. At the end of the public hearing, Council will vote on approving or rejecting this annexation petition. I'd like to know what you think.

Question Title

In the next question we will be talking about the Nubgaard annexation area. This area is shown below and is located just West of Lakeridge Estates.

In the next question we will be talking about the Nubgaard annexation area. This area is shown below and is located just West of Lakeridge Estates.

Question Title

* 3. Nubgaard Petition to Annex (LINK):

Council will be considering the Nubgaard petition to annex. This, unlike the Friberg decision above, is just the initial step in the process which will allow the applicant to move forward with doing additional evaluations. A vote to approve at this phase does not mean that it will ultimately be approved by Council. This annexation area may seem familiar. That is because it has already come before Council once in the past, but the applicant restarted the process because they had incorrectly noticed the surrounding areas. Council approved the annexation petition last time. This time, there are some differences, including eliminating the properties in the Southeast corner of the annexation area. Last time it was a rectangle including all properties in that area. The consequence of this change is that Lakeridge cannot punch through and connect to this area because only half of Nubgaard Road would be annexed. That means that until either that area also annexes, or development occurs to connect this area to the development to the North, the only way to access this area will be to leave the City limits, then drive on the County's Storr Road. And even more interestingly, the only way to access the properties that aren't included in this annexation (for example, if they call the police and the Sheriff responds because they remain in the County jurisdiction) is to drive on the County's Storr Road, then the City's Nubgaard road and then back to the County's portion of Nubgaard road.

Per City code, "To the extent possible, the City shall not allow annexations that create new unincorporated islands or unincorporated areas substantially surrounded by annexed areas." The term "unincorporated islands" is described in State law as a property having 80% of its border surrounded by another jurisdiction. There are no lots that would meet this definition, however the second half of the code, "...substantially surrounded by annexed areas" is not defined. The five properties together are surrounded on 3 sides by City and one side by County with the only access occurring on the City side as described before. Again, I won't express a specific opinion on this annexation petition until after the public hearing, but I think the "substantially surrounded" language is one of the key considerations in this case. I'd like to know your opinion.

Question Title

* 4. Stormwater Decant Facility Construction Contract (LINK):

We've previously talked about this decant facility and we are now ready to move forward with actual construction. Here's the background from a previous survey:

As part of the City's plan to improve its Stormwater facilities, it plans to build an enclosed decant facility that will serve as a location to drain vacuum truck waste, street sweepings, and stormwater facility spoils before disposal. This project will replace the current open-air decant facility that is undersized and less effective. There will be benefits to our stormwater program but also cost savings related to drier waste. Additionally this mitigates the risk of having to haul this material to Bellingham's decant facility if ours were to have an issue or become overburdened. In pursuing this project, the City received a significant grant from the State. This grant will pay for 75% of the project costs.

Construction costs were expected to come in at $2.8M but actual bids were in the $1.4M to $2.1M. The City is required to select the lowest responsible bidder. In this case that was Colacurcio Brothers, Inc. out of Blaine. Their bid of $1.43M was reviewed and found to be complete. The contract before Council for approval includes a 10% contingency for a total contract of $1.57M. 75% of those costs will be paid for through the State grant. This activity was already included in the 2023 budget. I am in favor of approving this construction contract.

Question Title

* 5. Council Salaries...Again (LINK):

Last meeting, Council deadlocked on whether or not to increase Council salaries by $200 per month following the next election of each position. This means that the motion failed. Council will now consider if we want to bring this topic back at the next meeting (in April) in what's called a "reconsideration" motion. You overwhelmingly voted against this increase in the last survey, and I agree with that. Note that per the schedule established in 2021, the Council salaries already increase by 3% each year, which I consider to be totally reasonable. We are also right in line with Lynden Council salaries (both in the $715 per month range). If it is reconsidered, I suspect the strategy will be to bring it back at a $150 per month increase, or if that can't get enough support, a $100 per month increase. Either way, this is an unwarranted increase in my view. One of the valid concerns with Council pay is that some Councilmembers have more meetings through their liaison positions with local groups than other members. Liaison positions are valuable to the City but are totally voluntary, not mandatory. Most Councilmembers have multiple liaison positions which can often take more time than the actual Council meetings. A salary model to recognize the different workloads would be to have a base salary and then a flexible additional pay based on liaison meetings up to a max so that a Councilmember doesn't rack up a bunch of meetings just to get the extra pay. If, for example, Council wanted to reduce base monthly pay by $100 and then have the option of adding two extra meetings of $50 each per month, I'd be open to that solution. It would allow Councilmembers who are engaging with the community groups to be paid more than those that choose not to, but it will still keep us on par with similarly sized cities. That sort of solution cannot be crafted in a reconsideration, but would be best handled through the normal committee process where is it discussed and refined at the committee level before coming back to Council. I'm not in favor of approving a reconsideration motion and would instead prefer this go back to committee (or just be dropped if the committee can't come up with a valid solution).

Question Title

* 6. Please let me know if you have any other comments. I encourage you to be respectful.

Question Title

* 7. If you did not receive a survey via email, but would like to receive future surveys via email, please add your contact information below. I strongly suggest doing this so that you will automatically receive the survey rather than having to search it out. An additional benefit to signing up is that you will receive an after-Council email that summarizes the Council vote(s) and survey responses. If you have signed up but did not receive this survey in your email, please let me know (and also check to see if it went to your junk/spam inbox).

0 of 7 answered
 

T