Members of Oak Harbor City Council are questioning why the city is planning to pay an estimated $700,000 to construct a road that would benefit a large national corporation when every other developer is expected to build their own infrastructure.

The Fakkema Access Road project would construct about 2,000 feet of public road to provide access to 11 parcels, totaling 53 acres, with Highway 20 frontage on the north end of the city.

The properties include the former site of the Westgate Mobile Home and are adjacent to the city-owned “Boyer property” that has been planted with Garry oak trees. The state Department of Transportation won’t allow access to the properties from the highway due to safety concerns.

City officials said U-Haul is planning on building a large facility on several parcels for rental trucks and storage.

Eric Marshall, owner of the Whidbey Weekly, discussed his opposition to the project at the Tuesday council meeting. He said four of the parcels are owned by the city and five are owned by a giant corporation, Amerco Real Estate Company; the CEO of the firm is worth more than $7 billion, he said.

“They don’t need our money,” he said. “They don’t need that road. If they want that road, they can build it themselves.”

Several council members also echoed his concerns with the project.

“Are we footing the bill to build an access road for a billion-dollar corporation that wants to develop the property and is perfectly capable of footing the bills themselves?” Councilmember Tara Hizon said in summarizing the question council members want to consider.

Mayor pro tem Beth Munns asked about the inflation in the cost of the cost of the project. It’s listed in the city’s 2021-2026 capital improvement plan as costing $481,500, but the newest estimate is $700,000.

“When it jumps by $200,000, it seems like a lot to me,” she said.

Council members didn’t make any final decisions about the project. They decided to delay a vote on the staff’s recommendation to change an end date on an agreement with a consulting firm doing design and engineering for the road. They will discuss the issue further at the Dec. 14 meeting.

Project Manager Brett Arvidson said the road is “not a fancy street by any shape or form,” but the immediate cost could be reduced by phasing the project. He confirmed that developers normally fund their own infrastructure for their projects.

“Correct, normally this kind of thing is borne by the developer,” he said in response to a question.

He and other city officials explained that the road project was envisioned as a way to encourage economic development on a high-visibility property with unique challenges due to access problems.

In an interview, Councilmember Jim Woessner explained that construction of the access road has been in the city’s capital facility plans for five years or so — and thus approved by council multiple times — but he expressed consternation that the city staff didn’t volunteer information about the inflation of the estimate earlier.

Also, Woessner said city staff led the council to believe that the project would be funded by Island County’s Rural County Economic Development Investment Program.

The Island County commissioners declined the city’s application for a $504,000 grant in 2019. In their discussions, the commissioners emphasized that the road would benefit only a couple of companies that were contributing nothing to its construction. Also, the city’s own application states the project would only create two jobs in its first three years.

“That was a huge deal breaker for me, spending a half million dollars for two jobs,” Commissioner Janet St. Clair said.

In fact, it appears that the city never had much of a chance at the grant. During a 2019 meeting, Elaine Marlow, the former budget director, said county leaders told city officials during easement discussion in 2016 and 2017 that they would not fund the project.

“The board was very clear that it did not want to participate in any improvements to those properties for access and entry from Fakkema Road,” she said.

In an interview this week, Commissioner Jill Johnson agreed.

“Building infrastructure is the responsibility of the developer,” she said. “I don’t know why the city would agree to build anything for a private company.”

During the meeting Tuesday, Councilmember Bryan Stucky questioned why contractors currently working on the property had a city logo on a sign at the site. City Administrator Blaine Oborn said the city sent the contractor a demand letter about the logo and the company agreed to remove it.

Woessner said it likely makes sense to continue the contract with the firm doing engineering and design work. Stopping now would just waste the investment the city already made, he said, but deciding whether to construct the road is a different matter.