The conversation continued with over 60 public comments and no action on Tuesday for Oak Harbor’s proposed Ordinance 1999, which would amend a code to allow the city to sell, donate or otherwise dispose of park land without a vote of the people.
The current code, section 1.30.010, was amended in 1997 to require a vote, which stopped the city from moving forward with plans to allow a developer to build a hotel on Flintstone Park on Bayshore Drive.
According to Carrie Stucky, chair of the parks and rec advisory commission, several parks already cannot be sold because they are restricted by grant-use, conservation or donation-use. She said holding a public election to dispose of parklands hinders flexibility, timeliness and response to community needs.
Each decision would still require a public hearing, which is more appropriate and effective than a vote, she said, as anybody can participate, as opposed to only Oak Harbor residents.
In a written comment, Amanda Bullis of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network said that council meetings are not more accessible than a vote, as they can have poor audio quality and lack a translator for those who need one.
An election can cost up to $36,000, Stucky said, repeating a statistic mentioned previously by Senior Planner Ray Lindenburg and Mayor Ronnie Wright.
According to Island County Election Supervisor Michele Reagan, if disposing parkland was on the ballot with other issues, the cost would be around $9,000.
Oak Harbor is one of two cities in Washington that requires such a vote. Langley, for example, only requires a public hearing and not an election, Stucky said.
Being one of two cities in the state with this type of ordinance should be celebrated, said Lee Roof of Oak Harbor, not maneuvered around.
At a recent parks and rec advisory meeting, the board unanimously recommended approving Ordinance 1999. Despite Councilmember Eric Marshall saying his mind was not made up on this issue, he supported this recommendation at that meeting.
The proposal to change the code comes as a Hilton hotel plans to be developed alongside, or possibly overlapping with, Hal Ramaley Memorial Park on Bayshore Drive. After the developer turned in their plans, the city requested something bigger to encourage mixed-use properties and greater developments, such as a convention center. The new plan included a land swap of 2,600 square feet, a minority of Hal Ramaley Memorial Park, and in return the developer would renovate the public space.
“They wanted to take that jagged edge and make it into a straight line to allow them to have the parking area, and in return they were willing to do some work for the city, essentially turn in a brand-new park to the city, when the project was completed,” Lindenburg said.
City staff is looking at moving the adjacent food forest, about 100 trees that provide free food to the community, in place of a plaza with a food court and a stage.
This single project should not be used as reasoning for a code to remove the vote of the people on all such projects, said Kyle Renninger of the Garry Oak Society.
“In the past the United States has not always provided voting rights to people, for example, women’s voting rights is a great example of that,” he said. “Thankfully, women can vote today, and they are represented on our council, so voting is really important, and removing an election provision for this parkland piece does disenfranchise voters.”
When looking back on history, providing voting rights is almost always viewed as the right side, he said, and removing them is viewed as the wrong side.
The Garry Oak Society recommends separating the issues, taking no action on changing the code and exploring all responsible alternatives, he said.
“I feel like this issue came at us like a freight train, and it was a dichotomy of if we want the hotel, we have to sacrifice the park, and I hope we can step back a little bit and say, have we evaluated all of the alternatives?” he said.
The food forest by Hal Ramaley Memorial Park was created in 2012. The trees are well established, said Netsah Zylinsky of Imagine, a volunteer group that tends to the forest. All the food in the forest gets eaten. Oak Harbor’s was the first food forest in the state and now there are over 25.
Gray Giordan, an Oak Harbor resident, questioned the need to move the forest, even in the case of a swap for a bigger one. If there is room for a bigger one, Oak Harbor should have two forests and not remove the first, he said.
“I think cutting down trees in place of a parking lot could be the song of the century,” he said.
Kathy Chalfant of Oak Harbor felt some of the sentiment expressed on this issue in previous meetings was inappropriate. Repeatedly, city leaders have said that if there was a vote on this issue there would be no Hilton.
This is not true, Lindenburg said, as the Hilton’s original plan without the community elements could persist without a change to the park.
“I am deeply disturbed by how the citizens and voters of Oak Harbor are viewed by staff, city council and the advisory committee,” Chalfant said. “We were called reactionary, uninformed, not trustworthy to vote intelligently, misinformed, out-of-towners, grandstanders who thought this was being done for the city’s financial gain.”
Later, she added, “We voted you in as council members, and we can vote you out if you aren’t willing to take the time to inform and then listen.”
Marshall admitted that he made some of the comments she was referring to.
“I take offense to some of these accusations,” he said, “because they’re making it sound like we are going to gain personally as council. I’m up here to do what’s in the best interest of our community. I’m a longtime community resident. I’ve been here since 1980. I’ve grown up here, and so to make any kind of comment that I’ve got blood on my hands from a tree that got killed, or there was a contract killing I mean, while I understand people are passionate, I have no responsibility in that.”
When the code was amended in 1997 to include a vote, this was in response to economic development, Roof said. The only exceptions listed were infrastructure related. To remove the vote is in direct conflict with the original reason the ordinance was passed.
“Who here knew Hal Ramaley? Anybody? Two? Three? I did,” Roof said. “He was a hell of a nice guy. He was a dedicated citizen to the community, and if he were alive today, two things would be apparent. One, he would be embarrassed that a park was named after him, and secondly, he would be standing here next to me wanting to maintain the status quo as far as keeping the parks the way they are.”
Councilmember Jim Woessner was Hal Ramaley’s paperboy, he said.
The city’s Parks and Recreation department just received a grant to study the best options for the food forest, Woessner said. The conversation to create a better food forest has been in the works much longer than the Hilton conversation.
The Hilton development could move forward without a change to Hal Ramaley Memorial Park, he said, but this is a great opportunity for a local developer to make the first investment in downtown Oak Harbor in 25 years.
“Wouldn’t we like to have a convention center? Wouldn’t we like to have meeting rooms? That’s something that was on the plan from back when,” he said. “That’s something that we’ve always envisioned.”
Unlike the previous council meeting where the ordinance was introduced, not every public comment on Tuesday was against it. Margaret Livermore, executive director of the Main Street Association, said in a volunteer survey that received 41 responses, 81% of the businesses downtown supported the Hilton development.
James Marrow said that creating additional park space could be better than maintaining the current space, and those who disagree may be feeling nostalgic.
“If you want to get stuff done, one of the surest ways to prevent it from happening is to have every decision made by a popular election,” he said.
The pool levy has failed in the past, said Nolan Saltonstall of Oak Harbor, and this is in part because of uninformed voters. Further, public hearings are effective. A case in point is this conversation, which the council has been responsive to.
“With that, you guys can egg my car later,” he said. “I support Ordinance 1999. Sorry, guys.”
None of the council members landed in their seat without an election, said Councilmember Christopher Wiegenstein, so they know the value of a vote. Also valuable is the long-term health and growth of the city, which is why they were elected in the first place.
“It’s really difficult to sit up here when you got your teachers in the front row, you know what I’m saying?” he said. “You talk about history, and you talk about being around.”
At the July 24 council workshop, staff will provide follow-up information and respond to council questions. Action will likely be taken at the Aug. 13 council meeting.
