In a 6-1 vote, the Oak Harbor council passed an ordinance that will loosen the restrictions on trading park land.

The council discussed ordinance 1999 for at least the fourth time during the regular meeting Tuesday night and passed a compromise version. The idea of changing the ordinance drew opposition from some residents as well as environmental groups who wanted to preserve a rule that requires a vote of the people before city parkland can change hands.

The ordinance will, however, allow for the swap of 2,600 square feet of Hal Ramaley Memorial Park on Bayshore Drive to a developer to build a much-anticipated Hilton hotel with conference rooms and renovate the park.

The final ordinance amended a city code which required a vote of the public for the city to sell, swap or otherwise dispose of parkland. The ordinance, as adopted, allows for a 1:1 ratio of land or greater for a land swap with requirements added to ensure that the city will get a good deal.

Under the ordinance, the land the city receives in a swap must be of equal or greater value, must be an appropriate replacement based on needs and location, and is subject to a development agreement, and can only be up to 10,000 square feet.

The sole nay voter was Councilmember Bryan Stucky, who said an objective analysis of community feedback over the course of several months shows overwhelming support for leaving the code alone.

“If we change things, we as a council have to look at the majority of the people and say, ‘We heard you. We did the opposite,’” he said.

Despite Stucky’s support of the project and general support of easing restrictions on the city, he felt the council should not change the code.

“With this amount of feedback, I think my opinion is a little more irrelevant,” he said. “I believe that doing anything other than leaving that vote of the people would be doing a disservice to the community and those that elected us to represent them.”

Voting against the will of the public builds distrust and sets a bad precedent for future decisions, he said.

Ray Lindenburg, Oak Harbor’s senior planner, pointed to the many benefits of going forward with a land swap. The Hilton provides great economic development opportunities for the people, and a conference center has been discussed among city leaders for decades.

“Economic development is important,” he said. “It affects everybody, and it benefits everybody. Business owners, property owners, taxpayers, everybody that lives within the city limits benefits when we have smart, well thought out economic development.”

In 1997, the council unanimously passed an ordinance requiring 60% of voters to approve any kind of parkland disposal, said former Councilmember Larry Eaton, who was one of those votes at the time.

“Here’s the problem that I have with you folks receding that, is how does it stop?” he asked. “If you do it now without the vote of the people, when do you do it again?”

He also asked where all these equal-value pieces of land to trade the parks were located, which went unanswered.

“The hard truth is the city hopes Hilton conference rooms will perform a miracle of economic resurgence on Pioneer Way, when you have no ability to predict success with this project,” said Laura Renninger, an Oak Harbor resident, “yet council seems willing to abolish the vote of the people to accomplish it?”

According to Mayor Pro Tem Tara Hizon, every relevant consultant and study in recent history has concluded that a convention center would revitalize the city’s economy.

“I’m not up here to get re-elected,” she said. “I’m up here to make decisions that are in the best interest in the most people of the area. Not just city limits.”

Taking away the people’s vote eliminates necessary input, said Kyle Renninger.

“If the city is the project originator, the rule-maker, reviewer, and decider, have we not lost our necessary checks and balances the government should be fulfilling?” he asked.

Later, he added, “There will be no one to blame but those who vote yes.”

Over 100 people have spoken out against this ordinance, tallied Amanda Bullis of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network, recommending that the council vote no and take the time to strategize a parks plan not tied to a specific project.

“Voting no gives you the respect of the people,” she said. “It shows you have been listening to them. It shows you value the public hearing process that city staff claims to be sufficient. If you vote yes, to amend this election provision, and codify a haphazard land exchange program without the proper due diligence, you have proven yourself to have other interests that are not in the best interests of the public you serve. It calls into question your values, your judgment, and your commitment to the people of Oak Harbor. Make the right choice, vote no and put the Hilton on the ballot.”

The deadline has passed for the Hal Ramaley Memorial Park swap to be on the November ballot, Stucky said.

“What a circus, and that is being (politically correct),” said Kathy Chalfant. “I’d like to say something stronger.”

The vast majority of people have not said they were willing to give up their vote if a compromise was made, she said, encouraging the council to draft a comprehensive parks plan and go through with the Hilton development as it applies as a completely separate issue.

“At the moment, you are demonstrating how important voting is because you are not listening, and we are not being heard,” she said.

With no action, the Hilton can be built without the conference rooms, and Hal Ramaley Memorial Park can remain the same, said Councilmember Jim Woessner, but if the city changed the code, the developer would pay to renovate the park, and there would be a public hearing involved in that proposal process.

Only Oak Harbor citizens would be able to vote, and many of the comments to the city regarding this issue are from out-of-towners, Woessner said.

At the meeting, Councilmember Christopher Wiegenstein tallied 28 written comments from those outside the city and 17 from within.

Despite these notes from her fellow council members, Hizon said that all comments were given equal weight no matter where they came from.

Voting for a compromise means the council has heard and responded to the public, said Councilmember Shane Hoffmire, a divergence from his input at a May meeting when he said democracy is “priceless” and that he would follow the will of the citizens.

A public vote doesn’t allow for debates, adjustments and compromises like public hearings do, said Councilmember Eric Marshall.

Wiegenstein agreed.

“I didn’t run to be sitting on this seat to just kick the can and not taking action, not redefining our ordinances in order to help the whole community,” Wiegenstein said.

Both Hizon and Lindenburg said they are unaware if the code requiring a vote to dispose of parkland has ever been applied.

Since 2021, Hizon said, the city has spent over half a million dollars on park maintenance, received an unprecedented $1.8 million urban forestry grant, hired an arborist, spent $14.5 million on park projects, continually added to park space and doubled park staff.

“I don’t think there is a universe in which anyone can say the city of Oak Harbor is not committed to our parks,” she said.

Hizon stood strong on her opinion.

“Come and talk to me in 10 years when Hal Ramaley Park still exists, and we have a thriving downtown and a hotel and convention center because that’s exactly what we needed,” she said. “I will eat my hat if Hal Ramaley Park doesn’t exist.”

After the vote, Hoffmire offered a fist bump to Stucky, who declined.