Betsy Peabody Sent - City of Bainbridge Island
Betsy Peabody Sent - City of Bainbridge Island
Betsy Peabody Sent - City of Bainbridge Island
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
From: <strong>Betsy</strong> <strong>Peabody</strong><br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Wed 8/18/2010 3:49 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Cc: ‘Wini Jones’; ‘Val Tollefson’; Tami Allen; ‘Stephen Streufert’; ‘Paul Ziakin’; ‘Kevin Dwyer’; ‘John Doerschuk’;<br />
‘John Demeyer’; ‘Jim Reilly’; ‘Janet Knox’; ‘Grant Dull’; ‘Eric Turl<strong>of</strong>f’; ‘Deb Rudnick’; ‘Cindy<br />
Robinson’; ‘Chris Van Dyk’; ‘Debbi Lester’<br />
Subject: WSF maintenance yard<br />
Hello dear Council,<br />
I attended a meeting last night with Debbi Lester to discuss the relative merits <strong>of</strong> either retaining the rights to<br />
one acre <strong>of</strong> the WSF maintenance yard OR allowing WSF to buy our rights to the land for 2.1 million dollars.<br />
I am sending a strong vote in favor <strong>of</strong> option 1: “Getting the land.” This is a huge opportunity to improve public<br />
access and enhance our working waterfront in ways that will benefit boaters and the local community.<br />
Best <strong>of</strong> luck with the deliberations.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<strong>Betsy</strong> <strong>Peabody</strong><br />
Executive Director<br />
Puget Sound Restoration Fund
From: Chris Van Dyk<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 8/19/2010 12:00 AM<br />
To: ‘<strong>Betsy</strong> <strong>Peabody</strong>’; Council<br />
Cc: ‘Wini Jones’; ‘Val Tollefson’; Tami Allen; ‘Stephen Streufert’; ‘Paul Ziakin’; ‘Kevin Dwyer’; ‘John Doerschuk’;<br />
‘John Demeyer’; ‘Jim Reilly’; ‘Janet Knox’; ‘Grant Dull’; ‘Eric Turl<strong>of</strong>f’; ‘Deb Rudnick’; ‘Cindy<br />
Robinson’; ‘Debbi Lester’<br />
Subject: RE: WSF maintenance yard<br />
Concur. I was there. The logic for this is compelling.<br />
The sense <strong>of</strong> the group was, once obtained, there will be ample opportunity to figure out how to develop the<br />
land, and if it cannot be used economically for active use, a more passive limited use is still good, and even a<br />
passive park use beats a ferry maintenance worker parking lot on waterfront property by a long shot.<br />
<strong>Betsy</strong> made the point, also, at the meeting, that a good portion <strong>of</strong> the two million, if we took it, would likely be<br />
spent figuring out to what better use it could be put...<br />
“..get the land..” has always been good advice, and certainly is so here, now.<br />
Chris Van Dyk<br />
Principal Owner,<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> Media Group, Inc.
From: Val Tollefson<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 8/19/2010 9:34 AM<br />
To: Wini Jones; Tami Allen; Stephen Streufert; Paul Ziakin; Kevin Dwyer; John Doerschuk; John Demeyer; Jim<br />
Reilly; Janet Knox; Grant Dull; Eric Turl<strong>of</strong>f; Deb Rudnick; Cindy Robinson; Chris Van Dyk; <strong>Betsy</strong> <strong>Peabody</strong>;<br />
Debbi Lester; Council<br />
Subject: WSF property disposition issue<br />
Dear Council Members,<br />
I understand that WSF has recently made an overture to settle the issue <strong>of</strong> its obligation to provide a portion <strong>of</strong><br />
the Winslow maintenance yard for public use, perhaps as a boat haul-out facility. I also understand that WSF<br />
has <strong>of</strong>fered COBI $2 million to be used for other undefined projects in Eagle Harbor if COBI will give up its<br />
claim to WSF property.<br />
In reaching a decision on this issue, please keep in mind two very important points. First, the pr<strong>of</strong>fered $2 million<br />
will not solve your budget problems. It would be special use money, and apparently would need to be spent<br />
in a relatively short time on projects in Eagle Harbor that may not even be on your current “to do” list.<br />
More importantly, obtaining the real property to which COBI is entitled is a necessary next step toward providing<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> with a working, maritime waterfront such as has been part <strong>of</strong> our history, and which is<br />
a key element <strong>of</strong> almost every other waterfront city and town in Puget Sound. The opportunity to get this real<br />
property may not come around again. Failure to seize this opportunity would be a serious mistake.<br />
As the current president <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> Land Trust, I have come to appreciate the fact that opportunities<br />
to preserve land do not necessarily present themselves at economically convenient times. But I have also<br />
learned that if those opportunities are not acted on, the conservation value <strong>of</strong> the property is <strong>of</strong>ten lost forever. I<br />
have also learned that <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>ers understand the importance <strong>of</strong> preserving land for public use, and are<br />
willing to support the capital cost involved. I think the same principal applies to your decision on this opportunity.<br />
Please think about this issue with a very long-range perspective. Don’t let this property slip away.<br />
Val Tollefson
From: Chris Van Dyk<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 8/19/2010 11:02 AM<br />
To: ‘Val Tollefson’; ‘Wini Jones’; Tami Allen; ‘Stephen Streufert’; ‘Paul Ziakin’; ‘Kevin Dwyer’; ‘John Doerschuk’;<br />
‘John Demeyer’; ‘Jim Reilly’; ‘Grant Dull’; ‘Eric Turl<strong>of</strong>f’; ‘Deb Rudnick’; ‘Cindy Robinson’; ‘<strong>Betsy</strong><br />
<strong>Peabody</strong>’; ‘Debbi Lester’; Council<br />
Subject: RE: WSF property disposition issue<br />
Val’s points are excellent, and I wish to concur with all <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
From an ‘investment’ perspective, ‘taking the money’ now, in my view, is short-sighted.<br />
Revenue generating opportunity from public/private development <strong>of</strong> the property----and from informal discussion<br />
and review that I have had with marine industry participants, the property is large enough if used creatively,<br />
for uses that would both benefit the community and be pr<strong>of</strong>itable for a lessee----that future development will<br />
result in the community getting both the property, and from even nominal leasehold payment plus tax revenue,<br />
the investment capital with which to pursue not only that development but with revenue from a long term lease<br />
and taxes, other improvements around the harbor.<br />
Before discounting the revenue generating capability <strong>of</strong> the property, and acting in a way {‘taking the money<br />
now’} that precludes its use for the long term developement option, I would strongly urge the Council to formally<br />
approach the marketplace in the form <strong>of</strong> an RFP or other mechanism that is <strong>of</strong> minimal cost to the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Unfortunately, I share the scepticism expressed by many that the <strong>City</strong> could effectively, and certainly quickly,<br />
conceive and invest the money in other projects with this degree <strong>of</strong> potential benefit. Regardless, the downside<br />
to getting the property and control over its future use is limited. Even if the <strong>City</strong> were to ultimately just sell it,<br />
or use it passively, whatever use could not possibly be worse or less beneficial to the community than as currently<br />
used by the ferry system --- a parking lot for Seattle-based ferry workers who ought to be more efficiently<br />
utilizing (their own) public transportation by walking, both aboard the ferry and the last quarter mile to their<br />
jobs.....<br />
As a disclaimer, I would simply note that I strongly support the continued presence <strong>of</strong> the ferry maintenance terminal<br />
where it is. But part <strong>of</strong> that use should be the best and highest use <strong>of</strong> the land-----either use it intensively<br />
for an industrial, waterfront use <strong>of</strong> demonstrable economic or recreational use for the public, or give it over to<br />
those who will so use it.<br />
With all due respect, I am,<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
Chris Van Dyk<br />
Principal Owner,<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> Media Group, Inc.
From: CINDY and GREGG ROBINSON<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 8/19/2010 2:10 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: WSF land and money <strong>of</strong>fer<br />
Dear Council Members,<br />
I attended last night’s meeting, led by Debi Lester, regarding the current proposal by WSF to deed back land to<br />
the COBI, and/or provide funds to further enhance projects in or around Eagle Harbor. In representing the boating<br />
community, I feel very strongly that if the <strong>City</strong> must choose between the land and the money, the best choice<br />
would be to take the land.<br />
Presently, Eagle Harbor is a most desireable destination for boaters in Puget Sound, but unfortunately, is not<br />
welcoming in the least; there is no guest moorage to speak <strong>of</strong>, and the harbor is so cluttered with liveaboards<br />
and derelict boats, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a safe and decent anchorage. Eagle Harbor Yacht Club<br />
has reciprocal arrangements with 32 other yacht clubs in the Puget Sound Region, and while we are welcome to<br />
use their facilities, we have very little to <strong>of</strong>fer them in the way <strong>of</strong> boating ammenities. Think <strong>of</strong> the lost revenue<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> turning so many people away, throughout the summer months especially.<br />
I look forward to the day when Eagle Harbor is returned to her maritime heritage and can welcome boaters with<br />
decent guest moorage and marina facilities.<br />
Respectfully,<br />
Cindy Robinson<br />
Commodore, Eagle Harbor Yacht Club
From: Robert Dashiell<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 8/19/2010 6:20 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: WSF Settlement<br />
I thought the discussion at the 8/18/10 CC workshop related to the WSF settlement <strong>of</strong>fer was quite good.<br />
It’s difficult for anyone who his familiar with <strong>City</strong> government expect the Council to act on anything using a<br />
fast track (nine years to build a WFP restroom; 13 years and still going <strong>of</strong> an open water marina), but the Mayor’s<br />
proposal to get two groups together and fast track possible options for a Council decision seems like a very<br />
good plan.<br />
I don’t think a property appraisal is called for. I don’t see the value in that expenditure.<br />
And I’m going to throw my early support behind a proposal by both Bill Knobloch and Barry Peters. Take the<br />
money and use if for a tourism oriented marina.<br />
Having sailed to different marinas in Puget Sound, I sense what kind <strong>of</strong> money a marina might bring into the<br />
<strong>City</strong> (especially good for restaurants and bars) , and I think a marina could likely be at least break even on operating<br />
costs, and $2 million might be enough to cover capital expenditures. Big plus for downtown businesses.<br />
Plus, people come into a port to join their friends for a day or two on the water, and that can lead to overnight<br />
guest housing.<br />
And it’s also a valid use for LTAC money ... you remember ... the “Civic Improvement Fund” that is almost<br />
never used for Civic Improvements? A spiffy new Marina for transient vessels and a new downtown street redo<br />
would be a pretty sweet combination ... especially if Waterfront Park could be made to look like a properly<br />
maintained park ... like the waterfront area in Poulsbo. They have concerts and events that also bring in tourists<br />
to their waterfront.<br />
And one more on LTAC .... Winslow Way is clearly the island’s largest tourist attraction. If the Council is going<br />
to empty the LTAC account, some thought might be given to doing something tourist related on Wnslow Way.<br />
Benches, water fountains, art ... all could be LTAC funded.<br />
I think the crowd that wants to keep the WSF piece should certainly get their day in court ... some new idea may<br />
germinate from that side that could also be viable.<br />
Finally nice to have something exciting to talk about too!<br />
Respectfully,<br />
Robert Dashiell
From: Paul Ziakin<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Sat 8/21/2010 5:43 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> boat repair facilities / WSF land<br />
Dear <strong>City</strong> Council,<br />
I want to encourage all <strong>of</strong> you to work together toward the end goal <strong>of</strong> getting our waterfront property back<br />
from WSF. The mandate is very clear from the community, “We want our waterfront back!”.<br />
During this difficult financial downturn, we need to take advantage <strong>of</strong> every opportunity to engender opportunities<br />
for the city and the public at large to generate revenue. As a park, and nature reserve it will invite even<br />
more island tourists, as a much needed boat haul out and work yard, it will bring great opportunity for the small<br />
business owner. It will attract boaters, and even more tourist dollars.<br />
This community needs your help and support on this!<br />
Thank you for your service and please, lets work together on this great opportunity!<br />
Respectfully,<br />
Paul T. Ziakin
From: John Peters<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Fri 8/27/2010 12:42 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: GET THE LAND<br />
to <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council<br />
..GET THE LAND..<br />
From John Peters, Harbor Commission
From: Tom Kane<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Fri 8/27/2010 3:17 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: Re: GET THE LAND, DO NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!<br />
Hi John;<br />
Tom Kane from the Harbor Commission. I am not convinced that the city should get the land. I looked the property<br />
over this morning and read the email’s. Most <strong>of</strong> the site dream could only happen if the Ferry system left<br />
the property and the city fell into a windfall <strong>of</strong> money.<br />
I also stopped by the boat rental and talked to the negative person there. He is kind <strong>of</strong> a city representative. A<br />
transient moorage dock out from where his float is would be a better location for people to get downtown. I<br />
would think for a million dollars we could build a pretty good dock depending on water depth. This if rational<br />
would leave money for other waterfront projects.<br />
To me the lease costs for a boat haulout would make it unfeasible and it <strong>of</strong> course uses up most <strong>of</strong> the .9 acres.<br />
Daryl McNab across the harbor has a straddle travel crane about setup for hauling out boats and would most<br />
probably be looking for someone to lease his system.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> the people that I have talked to say do not take the land. So Far they are mostly all water oriented and<br />
give reasons supporting problems making decisions and getting money to get the improvements done. There<br />
also has been a group for the transient moorage so boaters can spend money downtown. PLEASE don’t make a<br />
decision without checking other than the land option. This isn’t forest land. We will never get two million dollars<br />
<strong>of</strong>ferred again. thanks Tom Kane , Harbor Commission
Paul Ziakin<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 9/9/2010 8:37 AM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: Winslow Boatyard<br />
Honored Council,<br />
I attended last nights city council meeting and would like to <strong>of</strong>fer a few observations regarding the discussion<br />
on how to proceed with WSF and the property or the money decision.<br />
I am concerned that handing <strong>of</strong>f the negotiations with WSF to the city manager is not the best approach. This<br />
individual has no true incentive to work for the best deal possible for the community, and it sends the message<br />
that “this is not that important” to WSF. This is not a simple administrative chore, this is a significant and important<br />
decision that has lasting and pr<strong>of</strong>ound effects on this community!<br />
May I suggest that this decision demands that you do what ever it takes in the short time frame to meet with<br />
Mr. Mosely face to face! A contingent <strong>of</strong> you Council Members, together, representing both the property and<br />
the money choice would be far more effective in my opinion.<br />
Regarding this short time frame, part <strong>of</strong> the negotiations, and perhaps prior to, this time frame needs to be<br />
extended to suit our community. You need to demand more time to get things in order for such an important<br />
decision.<br />
Here is where the starting point <strong>of</strong> any negotiations for the land should be:<br />
* 99 year lease on property<br />
* Minimum to no lease rate, (WSF is a state agency, and this is for the public good)<br />
As for taking the money, you should consider very carefully here.<br />
While a lot could be done with these funds, what are you giving up? All future claim to a part <strong>of</strong> our community,<br />
a part <strong>of</strong> our heritage, this islands history? Are you signing away the last opportunity to restore the vitality<br />
and richness <strong>of</strong> our waterfront? What about the educational opportunities that will never be acted on?<br />
Are some extra mooring slips really worth this?<br />
Thank you all for your dedication and your service to this wonderful community.<br />
Respectfully,<br />
Paul and Colleen Ziakin
Wini Jones<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Sun 9/12/2010 5:35 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Cc: Jack Johnson; Brenda Bauer<br />
Subject: WSF Land or $<br />
Hello all,<br />
As you all know the WSF Maintenance Yard issue has played a leading role in Wini Jones’s passion play for<br />
many years. It finally looks like there may be a resolution in sight. However as Mr. Moseley’s <strong>of</strong>fer becomes<br />
more openly discussed and appears in the press, there is a great deal <strong>of</strong> misinformation being passed on....<br />
information that is conjecture and not fact. There are a great many details that need to be discussed and<br />
possibly negotiated by both COBI and WSF before enough is known to make an informed decision on the land<br />
or the money. Mosley’s letter (attached) is very vague and has lead people to assume his meaning and intention.<br />
Here are some questions for which you need answers in writing in order to understand either <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
Money:<br />
* What is the exact amount <strong>of</strong> money? Is it $2,000,000? His letter says “a financial package, limited to no<br />
more than the amount provided by the legislature in the 2010 budget”. The WSDOT 2010 Supplemental budget<br />
line 305 states “Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Improvement $2,104,000”. Moseley has not said how<br />
much <strong>of</strong> that he is <strong>of</strong>fering.<br />
* Is Mr. Moseley the one that determines the amount to be paid? Are there others?<br />
* What can the money be used for? His letter says “in pursuance <strong>of</strong> another property that would meet the<br />
cities interest in a community boat haul out facility”. Can it be used for the building <strong>of</strong> a marina and/or fuel<br />
dock, or other projects in Eagle Harbor?<br />
* Is WSF going to be involved in approving the use <strong>of</strong> the money, if so in what way?<br />
* What are the criteria for approving projects to be funded by the money?<br />
* What is the process and timeline for paying the funds? WSF normally issues project funding against a<br />
contract awarded after a RFP process.<br />
Land:<br />
* In his letter he says “the parcel would most likely take the form <strong>of</strong> the space shown on the attached site<br />
plan”. Which space on the attached site plan. What is the exact location and size <strong>of</strong> the land he plans to make<br />
available?<br />
* He says “there are restraints and conditions that would need to go along with the use <strong>of</strong> the site”. What<br />
are they?<br />
* As directed in the WA State District Court, Tacoma Consent Judgment from 1998, WSF must supply<br />
regular monitoring reports to EPA. Will WSF continue their monitoring if the land is leased?<br />
* There are several businesses interested in using the land. Will WSF sign a lease with a private operator, or<br />
is COBI their choice <strong>of</strong> lessee?<br />
* The MOA said that a lease agreement would be for a minimum <strong>of</strong> 20 years, not a finite 20 years, or a<br />
maximum <strong>of</strong> 20 years. What is the maximum number <strong>of</strong> years WSF would accept as the lease length?<br />
* How would the lease rate be determined? WSF acquired the land at no cost. From the EPA 1996 Record<br />
<strong>of</strong> Decision (written at the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the Superfund cleanup <strong>of</strong> the site): “ The CDF (confined disposal<br />
facility) will provide .9 acres <strong>of</strong> land to be used for the expansion <strong>of</strong> the WSF maintenance facility while<br />
allowing continued use <strong>of</strong> an acre <strong>of</strong> the condemned property for private water-dependent marine industrial
Wini Jones, page 2<br />
purposes. This land use is preferred by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>, was required under a 1974 Shorelines<br />
Management Act hearings board decision, and addresses citizen concerns regarding the shortage <strong>of</strong> boat repair<br />
facilities in Eagle Harbor.”<br />
Finally, the most important question to be asked whichever option is chosen; What is WSF expecting in return<br />
from COBI? Maybe it is nothing. There is speculation that it will be to relinquish any claim to the land, but you<br />
need that answer in writing. FYI, multiple times over the years various people have said that the 74 Shorelines<br />
Hearings Board declaration <strong>of</strong> use in perpetuity <strong>of</strong> a legally defined larger than one acre portion <strong>of</strong> the land for<br />
a marina or commercial boat facility was removed from the title during the 1995 Condemnation proceedings for<br />
the Trask land. This covenant is still on the title <strong>of</strong> the land. I have the title, have read the entire condemnation<br />
case, and spoken to a lawyer who acted in the case.<br />
My reason for sending this is that until there are answers to these questions, we should all be careful in talking<br />
openly about either the land or the money <strong>of</strong>fer so that people are not mislead. Hopefully all these questions<br />
can be answered before the public forums on 9/27 and 9/28. The answers to these questions will trigger the next<br />
level <strong>of</strong> information needed. Maybe there is a way to combine the two options, which would really be a win for<br />
all us <strong>Bainbridge</strong> islanders.<br />
If anyone would like any <strong>of</strong> the documents I have mentioned or any more information or has a question on<br />
this complex issue that is so important to our community, please call or let me know. Jack and Brenda, your<br />
learning curve on this is pretty steep. I would be happy to help.<br />
Wini
From: Dennis Fisher<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Wed 9/22/2010 6:17 PM<br />
To: Barry Peters; Council<br />
Cc: editor@bainbridgereview.com; tristan@tristanbaurick.com<br />
Subject: WSDOT ferry facility<br />
Dear Barry Peters,<br />
This is a response to your email <strong>of</strong> yesterday. You said:<br />
“Are you aware that the site is an EPA supervised superfund pollution site that WSF is responsible for<br />
monitoring and treating on an ongoing basis. The site is currently authorized by EPA to be used solely by WSF<br />
for its industrial ferry-maintenance purpose.”<br />
The document excerpts below show that the EPA authorizes, and WSDOT agrees to, at the least, a lease, or<br />
leases, for a minimum <strong>of</strong> 20 consecutive years, to a privately run water dependent industrial or commercial<br />
operation, <strong>of</strong> 1 acre size, or to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>.<br />
You said:<br />
“It’s not clear to me what business activity (if any) would be permitted to operate on the site by EPA, and it’s<br />
not clear what businesses (if any) would find it economic to operate on a capped superfund site <strong>of</strong> that limited<br />
shape and size, where the city has a lease to pay and would have to charge the businesses to operate there.”<br />
Mark Julian provided his own capital to develop and successfully run a marine haul-out and repair business on<br />
that site, paying to lease the site Russell Trask. Since then, the demand for that service has only increased.<br />
You said:<br />
“On the other hand, we already have lovely waterfront sitting and walking places in Waterfront Park.”<br />
Winslow has been, and is slated to take 50% <strong>of</strong> the growth on <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>. Despite the current deep<br />
recession, <strong>Bainbridge</strong> will continue to grow. Winslow does not have enough public waterfront for its current<br />
and future inhabitants to sit and walk along the waterfront. We have many more tourists come to Winslow to<br />
walk and shop than boaters. Even if there were 20 more public dockside moorages, which I doubt could be<br />
squeezed in, the ferries can and do carry far more.<br />
Please read the citations below, or better, read the documents in their entirety, and re-consider your leanings in<br />
this matter.<br />
Thank you for your time and consideration.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Dennis Fisher
Dennis Fisher, Page 2<br />
EPA Superfund<br />
Record <strong>of</strong> Decision Amendment:<br />
WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR<br />
EPA ID: WAD009248295<br />
OU 03<br />
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA<br />
12/08/1995<br />
Reasons for Issuing ROD Amendment<br />
The modification to the remedy, which calls for containment <strong>of</strong> mercury hot spot sediments in a nearshore<br />
CDF, is protective <strong>of</strong> human health and the environment and satisfies a community issue regarding the use <strong>of</strong><br />
waterfront lands in Eagle Harbor. The CDF will provide 0.9 acres <strong>of</strong> land to be used for expansion <strong>of</strong> the WSF<br />
maintenance facility while allowing continued use <strong>of</strong> an acre <strong>of</strong> the condemned property for private waterdependent<br />
marine industrial purposes. This land use is preferred by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>, was required<br />
under a 1974 Shorelines Management Act hearings board decision, and addresses citizen concerns regarding the<br />
shortage <strong>of</strong> boat repair facilities in Eagle Harbor.<br />
The State <strong>of</strong> Washington concurred with the 1992 selected remedy and concurs with this ROD amendment. A<br />
letter <strong>of</strong> concurrence is included as Appendix B.<br />
1. Comments On Land Use and Boatyard<br />
Comment Overview: Support for the boatyard was the predominant theme in comments from individual<br />
members <strong>of</strong> the community. Many comments were directed at the WSDOT and either objected to the WSDOT<br />
terms in negotiations with Eagle Harbor boatyard or emphasized positive aspects <strong>of</strong> Eagle Harbor Boatyard.<br />
All emphasized the importance <strong>of</strong> retaining a place in Eagle Harbor for small boat haulout and repairs. Many<br />
remarked on the lack <strong>of</strong> alternative locations in the area, the importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>’s maritime<br />
heritage, and the jobs, tax base, high quality work, and convenience provided by this boatyard. The community<br />
comments clearly urged EPA to support a binding arrangement between WSDOT, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>,<br />
and if possible Eagle Harbor Boatyard, for economically feasible private boatyard operations in Eagle Harbor.<br />
Response: Because there is not a compelling environmental need for a ROD Amendment, EPA views this input<br />
as critical, and considers an arrangement for such long-term future uses a condition <strong>of</strong> amending the ROD.<br />
2.1.2 Continued Operation <strong>of</strong> Private Boat Yard<br />
Approximately one acre <strong>of</strong> the BMS property is currently leased and privately operated by the Eagle Harbor<br />
Boat Yard as a separate boat yard and sailboat repair operation. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> and the<br />
community have expressed a strong need for continued operation <strong>of</strong> a private boatyard at this site. WSDOT has<br />
been diligently pursuing options that would allow continued operation <strong>of</strong> a private boat yard.<br />
To accommodate community demand for private boatyard services, WSDOT proposes to continue leasing<br />
this one-acre portion <strong>of</strong> the BMS property to a private boat yard operator (possibly acting through the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>), and to construct a new access road and boat ramp.
Dennis Fisher, Page 3<br />
Although WSDOT purchased the 3.5-acre BMS property to address identified WSF expansion needs, continued<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the private boat yard at this site would reduce land available to meet Maintenance Facility needs by<br />
at least one acre. The Nearshore Fill is therefore necessary to assure adequate usable upland area.<br />
2.2.2 Private Boatyard<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> this Project, WSDOT is proposing to retain a private boat yard operation on one acre located within<br />
the northwest corner <strong>of</strong> newly purchased BMS property. In addition, an access road to a boat ramp would be<br />
provided along the western upland property boundary for use by the private boatyard operator.<br />
2.3.3 Eagle Harbor Boat Yard Improvements (1 Acre Leased Facility)<br />
WSDOT proposes to retain approximately one acre <strong>of</strong> the recently purchased BMS property in operation as a<br />
private boat yard. To accommodate continued operation <strong>of</strong> the private boatyard, WSDOT proposes to construct<br />
a new marine boat loading ramp to provide for boat haul out and to launch boats serviced by the private boat<br />
yard. This marine boat loading ramp would be constructed along the southerly side <strong>of</strong> property boundary (See<br />
Figure 2-2) and may be used by WSDOT for joint purposes. The boat yard operation may separately propose to<br />
construct a new 6,000-square-foot building within the leased site area.<br />
Appendix C<br />
Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Agreement<br />
WSDOT and <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong><br />
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT<br />
Between the<br />
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION<br />
and the<br />
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND<br />
Regarding<br />
LONG-TERM PRIVATE, WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIAL<br />
OPERATIONS<br />
I. PURPOSE<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Agreement (MOA) is to set forth WSDOT’s agreement to enter into a<br />
long-term (minimum 20-years) lease on approximately 1-acre <strong>of</strong> property recently acquired by the Washington<br />
State Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation (WSDOT) immediately adjacent to the existing Washington State Ferries<br />
maintenance facility. The lease will perpetuate continual use <strong>of</strong> the property for private water-dependent<br />
industrial or commercial operations. WSDOT’s agreement is in consideration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s anticipated approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> WSDOT’s future development plans for the expansion <strong>of</strong> its maintenance facility. This MOA is being<br />
executed as part <strong>of</strong> a proposed nearshore fill alternative for the cleanup <strong>of</strong> the West Harbor Operable Unit <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Wyck<strong>of</strong>f /Eagle Harbor Superfund Site and is contingent thereon.
Dennis Fisher, Page 4<br />
II. BACKGROUND<br />
WSDOT has recently acquired property in Eagle Harbor formerly owned by <strong>Bainbridge</strong> Marine Services, to<br />
allow for expansion <strong>of</strong> the Washington State Ferries maintenance facility.<br />
Concurrent with this acquisition, WSDOT has participated with PACCAR Inc. In the design <strong>of</strong> sediment<br />
remediation in the West Harbor Operable Unit <strong>of</strong> the Wyck<strong>of</strong>f /Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. IN consideration<br />
<strong>of</strong> new information obtained during the design effort, and in order to facilitate WSDOT’s facility expansion<br />
and address local community needs for maintaining a private boatyard facility or other private water-dependent<br />
industrial or commercial operations in this area, WSDOT has proposed to construct a 0.9-acre nearshore fill on<br />
Eagle Harbor tidelands owned by WSDOT. Project approval by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency<br />
(EPA), under the authority <strong>of</strong> both Superfund and the Clean Water Act, is necessary prior to construction.<br />
WSDOT and the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> both understand the strong desire <strong>of</strong> the local community to<br />
set aside approximately 1 acre <strong>of</strong> WSDOT’s recently acquired site for long-term lease by a private waterdependent<br />
industrial or commercial operation such as a boatyard, consistent with the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong><br />
<strong>Island</strong>’s comprehensive land use plan and direction provided under the state Shoreline Management Act.<br />
Accommodation <strong>of</strong> such a private operation at the site was an objective <strong>of</strong> the WSDOT/EPA nearshore fill<br />
proposal. In order to provide both EPA and the local community with additional assurances that private waterdependent<br />
industrial or commercial operations will continue at the site, WSDOT and the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong><br />
<strong>Island</strong> have jointly developed this MOA.<br />
III. PROVISIONS<br />
In consideration <strong>of</strong> mutual promises herein, the parties agree as follows:<br />
1. Approval <strong>of</strong> Future Site Development Permit Applications. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> is expected to<br />
approve forthcoming development plans and associated permits for the expansion <strong>of</strong> the Washington State<br />
Ferries maintenance terminal at Eagle Harbor. Nothing in this MOA is intended to prevent the <strong>City</strong> from<br />
requiring additional mitigation including, but not limited to, construction <strong>of</strong> noise and view buffers as a part <strong>of</strong><br />
their normal development review and permit approval process.<br />
2. WSDOT agrees to enter into a long-term lease or leases, for a minimum <strong>of</strong> 20 consecutive years from the date<br />
<strong>of</strong> this agreement, <strong>of</strong> an approximate 1-acre area to either a private water-dependent industrial or commercial<br />
operation or to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>.<br />
IV. EXECUTION<br />
This agreement becomes effective upon signature <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> and the Washington State<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation.
From: Scott Sprague<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Mon 9/27/2010 10:35 PM<br />
To: Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Barry Peters; Bob Scales<br />
Subject: Boatyard Comment<br />
Scott B Sprague<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>, WA 98110<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council**<br />
280 Madison Ave. N.<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>, WA 98110<br />
Regarding: Boatyard at Winslow Ferry Property<br />
Dear Council Members,<br />
To those healthy individuals not infected with the boat disease, all this fuss over a boat yard must seem strange.<br />
Yet we are in the first era since the late 1800’s where there has not been a vessel haul-out on <strong>Bainbridge</strong><br />
<strong>Island</strong>. And paradoxically there are more boats than ever.hundreds.that have this diabolical need to haul out<br />
routinely for the latest perceived improvement or maintenance issue.<br />
So now we must take our business and our checkbook elsewhere. That last line on the yard bill, the dreaded<br />
sales tax, goes in part to the local fiefdom <strong>of</strong> Port Townsend, Seattle, Port Orchard, Edmonds.the places we go<br />
to spend our hard earned money at the boat yards an communities that welcome us. Being in denial about how<br />
much I really spend on this boat pox, it pains me to reveal that each year I spend $400-700 for the privilege <strong>of</strong><br />
working on this inside-out swimming pool (and that’s before I buy the paint and the latest gizmo.). Multiply<br />
that by hundreds <strong>of</strong> boats.it boggles the mind. It’s a bigger revenue stream than iced lattes.<br />
Environmental concerns? One <strong>of</strong> the advantages <strong>of</strong> the site at the ferry yard is the paved over surface. It seems<br />
to me that collection and filtering <strong>of</strong> the run<strong>of</strong>f is a good idea to keep things clean. Also, modern vacuum<br />
systems with sanders plugged in keep dust out <strong>of</strong> the air. Best management to keep things clean is now<br />
available and achievable.<br />
For the quantity <strong>of</strong> boats on our fair island, two boatyards, one in Winslow, and one in Eagledale, seem viable.<br />
So let’s get on with it. We’ve been waiting for years.<br />
Thank you very much,<br />
Scott B Sprague
From: Mark Julian<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Tue 9/28/2010 10:54 AM<br />
To: Bob Scales; Bill Knobloch; Barry Peters; Debbi Lester; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz;<br />
Brenda Bauer; Kathy Cook<br />
Subject: WSF property options<br />
Dear <strong>City</strong> Council Members,<br />
I see that you will be discussing the WSF property on your agenda tonight. I will not be able to attend, but<br />
would like to provide you my comment. Having built and operated Eagle Harbor Boatyard Inc. on the current<br />
WSF property I thought I should <strong>of</strong>fer you my perspective on the options available to the <strong>City</strong> regarding<br />
settlement <strong>of</strong> the Memorandum <strong>of</strong> Agreement that was signed to some degree as compensation for the loss <strong>of</strong><br />
my facility.<br />
My feeling is that first and foremost we should be looking at which option is the best opportunity to provide<br />
water access and a financially healthy community for the largest number <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>. I<br />
think that an expanded marina at Waterfront Park, or an expanded marina at Waterfront Park and boat ramp<br />
improvements elsewhere, would be <strong>of</strong> greater benefit to a larger number <strong>of</strong> people by keeping Winslow a<br />
vibrant and solvent community and by providing improved public access for kayakers, rowboats, rowing shells,<br />
the disabled and small sailboats. A haulout facility or Boat School, really serves a rather small customer base.<br />
The small boat type <strong>of</strong> activities I mentioned will not happen on the WSF site if it is developed as a boatyard.<br />
The costs for development will be too great and the only way a boatyard will survive will be to charge the<br />
maximum amount possible for every square foot <strong>of</strong> space and top dollar for all work performed. It will not be a<br />
place to stroll by the water and launch your small boat. I don’t think that it would be the “community” boatyard<br />
some people are hoping for.<br />
I will point out my major concerns with the WSF property:<br />
1. We have no idea how much the DOT thinks a “market rate” lease is going to cost each month. (I guess we<br />
do now, see link below), We do know they paid over a million dollars an acre for it fifteen years ago, plus<br />
cleanup costs and mitigation. The math can probably be done from there, let’s look at a likely scenario, if I<br />
were the property owner I would expect at least a 7% return on the lease. If the property is worth 1.75 to 2<br />
million dollars, that is $10,200.00 to $11,600.00 per month. Add in another 1.5 million for improvements to<br />
allow haulouts and repair, at a 7% rate to pay for the borrowed money and that’s another $8750.00 per month.<br />
$19,000.00 to $20,350.00 per month is a huge fixed overhead cost in my book, just the lease rate <strong>of</strong> $10,000.00<br />
per month would be onerous.<br />
Of course, these are just my numbers, not the States, but I would be surprised if they are very far from reality<br />
and they may actually be low. The point is that without these hard numbers, no potential operator can make a<br />
proposal that is indicative <strong>of</strong> anything other than “interest”, feasibility cannot be a consideration without the<br />
hard numbers.<br />
And I will repeat, with anywhere near these costs, the only activity that will take place on that property is an<br />
activity that produces maximum economic benefit to the operator. If it is developed as a boatyard, it will not be<br />
the “community” boatyard some people are hoping for.<br />
2. Given potential hazardous materials on and <strong>of</strong>f the site, we have only a very rough idea what permitting and<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> either a ramp or a travelift pier will cost to build on that site. The one thing we can be
Mark Julian, Page 2<br />
sure <strong>of</strong> is that it will be extremely expensive and we do not have any money. Again, without that number no<br />
potential operator can make a proposal that is indicative <strong>of</strong> anything other than “interest”, feasibility cannot be a<br />
consideration without the hard numbers.<br />
3. Unless somethig has changed in recent years, the State DOT will very likely require a 90 day cancellation<br />
clause in any lease they write. That was stated to me many times by the DOT Real Estate Services Division, to<br />
be required by State law, when I was negotiating with them. I can’t imagine a community, or a private operator<br />
making a large investment in the property if that clause has to be included.<br />
4. I believe that current zoning setbacks required may make the functionality <strong>of</strong> a boatyard unlikely.<br />
5. Neither the <strong>City</strong>, nor WSF has funds available for a haulout pier, or ramp anywhere in the foreseeable future.<br />
6. If it is not going to be a working boatyard, but a place for small boats, etc. then the <strong>City</strong> still has to pay a<br />
high lease rate for virtually no return from a tenant and has no money for infrastructure. However, if we put a<br />
small boat facility at <strong>City</strong> Dock, we have no additional land costs, and we have the money to do the project.<br />
Permitting will also likely be much easier for an expanded <strong>City</strong> Dock because most <strong>of</strong> the over water coverage<br />
will be out beyond the near shore habitat area as opposed to right on the shore.<br />
6. If there is an operator that really wants to put a boatyard in Eagle Harbor, the opportunity exists on<br />
appropriately zoned land, that already has most <strong>of</strong> the infrastructure in place, on the other side <strong>of</strong> the harbor. Let<br />
the market for that service prevail and let a private operator put in a privately funded yard. The <strong>City</strong> does not<br />
need to be involved.<br />
Thanks for your time and dedication to the community.<br />
Best regards,<br />
Mark Julian<br />
Eagle Harbor Boatyard Inc.<br />
PS<br />
Washington State Ferries Director David Moseley sent a letter to the city Friday clarifying its proposal. Mosely<br />
wrote that the fair-market lease to the city would be $25,000 to $30,000 per month based on other WSF leases<br />
in Puget Sound. The city would have to get at least that much back from its renter.<br />
Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/27/two-visions-emerge-for-land-near-bainbridge-yard/<br />
#ixzz10n6YzY7l
From: Tom Kuniholm<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Tue 9/28/2010 3:32 PM<br />
Subject: RE: Washington State Ferries Settlement Offer Meetings<br />
I can’t attend the meeting tonight, but as a boat owner and architect/planner, I strongly support a new state <strong>of</strong> the<br />
art, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, LEADING EDGE haul-out, fuel dock, pump-out boatyard waterfront<br />
use, as there is a dire need for one in central Puget Sound. It would be very economically viable and historically<br />
was the use there before being eliminated by the WSF storage. There is much energy going into improving the<br />
environmental standards <strong>of</strong> the manmade world on land, but there is great potential in this regard to improving<br />
the standards for the boating world. It would be natural for <strong>Bainbridge</strong> to be leading the way on the water.<br />
Water taxi too.<br />
Best,<br />
Tom<br />
Tom Kuniholm, AIA<br />
A r c h i t e c t
From: tom kane<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 9/30/2010 11:05 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Cc: Tami Allen; tom kane; Mark Leese; Sandra Davis; David Lynch; Dave Ullin; Ross West<br />
Subject: CC mtgs- Ferry System <strong>of</strong>fers<br />
Hi <strong>City</strong> Councilors;<br />
I would like to make some personal coments regarding the Citizens input meetings and where we are now.<br />
Bob and Debbie did a great job getting the most information possible from the meetings. The people on monday<br />
were interested in taking land only except for Barry Peters transient Marina did get six votes. Debbie had<br />
Mr Pappijani (?sp) give a presentation on a boatyard on the land site. He talked about getting financing, taking<br />
business away from their Seaview west yard, Costs and property shape and that he would require a much lower<br />
lease based on business pr<strong>of</strong>it. Phil Maher also gave a pitch for a wooden boat school there. Both the Boatyard/<br />
Haulout and woodboat school would be good for the site and <strong>Island</strong> but do not seem likely during the current<br />
economic situation. Barry’s Marina program is well researched and will be good for the <strong>City</strong> and fits the money<br />
amount.<br />
There was much discussion about getting money plus land and bargaining with the Ferry system. There also was<br />
some concern about losing the money option by trying to negotiate or stand up to the Ferry system. One person<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered $100 towards getting help for negotiating, eight other people <strong>of</strong>fered to join him and he raised his <strong>of</strong>fer<br />
to $500. Some <strong>of</strong> the people at the meetings have been working on this for years, there was a lot <strong>of</strong> passion and<br />
squeaky wheels. It would be nice if this could be related to the twenty three thousand citizens <strong>of</strong> the island. The<br />
only way to placate some <strong>of</strong> the people at the meetings is by further negotiation. We do not have enough information<br />
at this time to make decisions. Where do we go from here.<br />
Has someone talked to our Olympia Representatives about if our only option is to let the Ferry System (Mr<br />
Mosely) dictate to us. It seems that with current attempts to control Ferry System costs and the possibility <strong>of</strong><br />
them having to outsource maintenance could affect their ownership <strong>of</strong> the property, but not likely. They will<br />
always need space for some maintenance and the tieup <strong>of</strong> some ferries. It is a perfect property for them. But<br />
they could certainly do with a smaller parking lot for the employees that work at this site. The rites granted by<br />
the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board in 1974 stated public use <strong>of</strong> the land for perpetuity. I think we<br />
should get the state looking a little harder into why this Covenant is not being honored. I believe the land they<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered is a narrow strip on the west side, that won,t work for a Boatyard. We should ask for a boatyard size<br />
piece, with access that won’t be effected by Security changes. Maybe we can end up with the narrow strip. IN<br />
NO WAY SHOULD WE GIVE UP THE MONEY.<br />
I know the Harbor Commission is ready to help you in any way that we can. Please let us know how..
From: Bob Selzler<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Mon 10/4/2010 4:51 PM<br />
To: Council; Brenda Bauer<br />
Cc: Ross West; Mark Leese; Tom Kane; Sandra Davis; John Peters; David Lynch; Dave Ullin; Tami Allen<br />
Subject: Please accept the WSDOT <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> $2,100,000<br />
To: BI Harbor Commssion, Council, Administration<br />
I encourage the HC and Council to accept and utilize the <strong>of</strong>fered WSF funds ($2,000,000) for other projects in<br />
the harbor instead <strong>of</strong> burdening the <strong>City</strong> with an expensive, long term lease commitment on a portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ferry maintenance yard.<br />
The greater community would be better served by performing a rehab on the city dock and adding a small marina<br />
for visiting boaters. I took the following picture last Saturday which shows better than any words<br />
that <strong>Bainbridge</strong> is not a great venue for visitors arriving by water. These folks are doing their best to enjoy our<br />
city but their use <strong>of</strong> our old dock is greatly hampering access for our trailer boaters. Things get crowded down<br />
there and it isn’t even summer anymore. If we had a small marina like those recently presented by Barry Peters<br />
there would be multiple beneficiaries including our non-motorized groups having better access, less crowding<br />
on the main dock, more visitors to the island, etc.<br />
BTW, what you don’t see in this picture are the trailer boats (parked behind me) waiting to launch and other<br />
boats in the water waiting to haul out. It was pretty much gridlock down there with no room at the<br />
bottom <strong>of</strong> the ramp for locals to get in or out with their trailered vessels.
From: John Papajani<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 10/7/2010 12:08 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: WSF <strong>of</strong>fer<br />
Dear Council Members,<br />
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf <strong>of</strong> Seaview Boatyard at last night’s work session on the<br />
WSF <strong>of</strong>fer. I’d like to take <strong>of</strong>f my Seaview Boatyard hat and don my <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> resident’s hat.<br />
WSF has made the city a limited time <strong>of</strong>fer with two options. Before you do anything else you need to figure out<br />
if their timeline is valid. What happens if you don’t perform by their deadline? Do you lose your legal claim to<br />
the boatyard? To answer these and other questions you need to determine your legal standing regarding the past<br />
agreements and rulings. I’m sure you have a legal analysis <strong>of</strong> your position. Without knowing your strengths<br />
you are negotiating from a position <strong>of</strong> weakness. a very bad spot to be.<br />
Once you determine the strength <strong>of</strong> your claim you need to ask yourselves a question - do you want an island<br />
boatyard? If so then fight for it. If you don’t want a boatyard then take the money, give up all future claims, and<br />
get on with life.<br />
They’ve made the boatyard lease conditions so onerous, as Mr. Knobloch characterized it, it’s obvious they<br />
don’t want the island to have a boatyard on their site. They’re just covering their butt by making the <strong>of</strong>fer. They<br />
want you to take the money and go away. You seem afraid to make a counter <strong>of</strong>fer which states your terms.<br />
Instead you are coming back to them with a “mother may I?” attitude that does nothing but show you are negotiating<br />
from a position <strong>of</strong> self-perceived weakness. If you determined you have a strong claim then stand up and<br />
negotiate. Play hardball, and don’t be bullied by the WSF folks. If you don’t come up with a signed lease and<br />
you really want a boatyard then you can wait to fight again at a later date. or you could still take the money and<br />
the game is over. At least you tried.<br />
Thanks for listening.<br />
John Papajani
From: Lee Brumley<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Fri 10/8/2010 2:34 PM<br />
Subject: <strong>Bainbridge</strong> Boat Yard<br />
October 8, 2010<br />
As a citizen and registered voter <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>, I would urge you to look favorably upon the<br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> a boat yard on <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>. It would create jobs in our community, it would <strong>of</strong>fer a vital<br />
service to the marine industry, and it would insure that our <strong>Island</strong>’s lands are being used by and for <strong>Island</strong>er’s.<br />
The rental agreement must be made reasonable to insure that our island stays the vibrant community that it is.<br />
Thank you.<br />
Lee Brumley<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong>, WA 98110
From: Peter Shorett<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Fri 10/8/2010 3:05 PM<br />
Subject: Boatyard please<br />
Peter K. Shorett
From: Blake Reiter<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Fri 10/8/2010 5:42 PM<br />
Subject: WSF-boatyard<br />
Hi<br />
I want to lend my support for a BI boatyard. There is a need, it will serve the people <strong>of</strong> BI and Kitsap county<br />
well, and it is in the interests <strong>of</strong> a working harbor. This is a wonderful opportunity and we should not squander<br />
our chance. thanks. Sincerely, Blake<br />
Blake E. Reiter, MD
From: Rivers Black<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Sat 10/9/2010 1:11 PM<br />
To: Kim Brackett; Bill Knobloch; Bob Scales; Barry Peters; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Debbi Lester<br />
Subject: Washington State Ferry site / Property Use proposals<br />
Gentlemen / Ladies:<br />
I have been a <strong>Bainbridge</strong> <strong>Island</strong> resident for 17 years, living in the Port Madison area. My parents lived on the<br />
<strong>Island</strong> for thirty (30) years.<br />
I realize the <strong>City</strong> is currently considering the approach to take with the Ferry site property, the leasing or<br />
acquisition options, and what uses <strong>of</strong> that property will be considered. I write concerning those issues.<br />
I am a very strong supporter <strong>of</strong> a use for the property that will allow for a boat yard. Such a facility is<br />
sorely needed ion the <strong>Island</strong>. The <strong>Bainbridge</strong> community is ties to the water and a huge percentage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
population enjoys boating in all its many forms. There are no facilities for boaters on the <strong>Island</strong>. Other than<br />
the convenience this would involve, it is a financial issue for the <strong>Island</strong>. We currently take our boat repair<br />
and repair and maintenance money <strong>of</strong>f <strong>Island</strong>. <strong>Island</strong> keep that money on the <strong>Island</strong> and reinvested into our<br />
community.<br />
Please consider development <strong>of</strong> a boat yard on the site. Thanks you.<br />
W.L. Rivers Black<br />
Elaine Black
From: Merrill Robison<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Sun 10/10/2010 2:46 PM<br />
To: Bob Scales; Debbi Lester; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Kim Brackett; Barry Peters; Bill Knobloch; Hilary Franz<br />
Cc: <strong>City</strong>manager@c.i.bainbridge-isl.wa.us; David Moseley; Christine Rolfes<br />
Subject: WSFerry Community Boatyard<br />
The State is finally wise to hire a good smart manager for their Ferry System, David Moseley. Over the last 20<br />
years he is the best manager they have had, according to my values. He is smart enough to get the WSF <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong><br />
their legal issues that are a part <strong>of</strong> the ownership <strong>of</strong> the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility. I also think he is<br />
smart enough to know that the use <strong>of</strong> part <strong>of</strong> the facility as a Community Boatyard will not pass judgement <strong>of</strong><br />
the US Security Department to allow all <strong>of</strong> us 3500 B.I. licensed boaters to mingle with the laid up or stored<br />
State Ferry boats on the site or worse yet in the water front <strong>of</strong> the Facility. I have recently written Rep. Jay<br />
Inslee to get a written position from the Security people that will allow the site to become a Community<br />
boatyard before COBI goes too far with the WSF system and David Moseley.<br />
If the US Security <strong>of</strong>ficials agree to a boatyard I favor the plan to use the 135 employee Parking s part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
boatyard and build a multistory parking facility for the employees (at State expense) plus other parking needs.<br />
Merrill Robison<br />
cc; Jay Inslee’s Postal address in Poulsbo
From: Andy Parker<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Mon 10/11/2010 2:12 PM<br />
To: Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Bob Scales; Barry Peters<br />
Subject: Boatyard Operators OK with letter<br />
10/11/2010<br />
Dear <strong>City</strong> Council Members,<br />
I am writing you on behalf <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> potential boatyard operators. In the meeting on the 6th you presented<br />
a letter from the WSF, which I had not read. We now have had a chance to read it, and the 95 MOA and have<br />
concluded there is nothing here to deter the city from executing a market rate lease negotiation with the WSF<br />
except the will <strong>of</strong> the city council.<br />
I understand that the city is in financial trouble and this very ill timed and divisive <strong>of</strong>fer is sapping city council<br />
attention better spent on important budget issues affecting the entire island. But the boating community has been<br />
given little choice but to insist that the city exercise it’s rights to the land lease and the fulfillment <strong>of</strong> the MOA<br />
between it and the WSF. I cannot believe that the city wants to be on the hook for purposefully signing away a<br />
community boatyard with a 1-2 million dollar gross, a payroll <strong>of</strong> 10-20 employees, local sales <strong>of</strong> supplies and<br />
services, for construction <strong>of</strong> transient marina with a seasonal income and little direct benefit to island residents.<br />
We have known about this <strong>of</strong>fer for two weeks. Before then, no one really knew that there was an agreement in<br />
that a boatyard was not only possible but also agreed to. So, in two weeks we have identified operators, investors<br />
and financing. My group consists <strong>of</strong> a naval architect, a building architect who owned a boatyard<br />
in the past, and a senior corporate manager. All <strong>of</strong> us sail and have at some time privately or pr<strong>of</strong>essionally performed<br />
the services that we would <strong>of</strong>fer in a new boatyard. We are serious.<br />
At this point we are asking nothing from the city in the form <strong>of</strong> money. We are asking the city to exercise its<br />
fiduciary responsibility and negotiate for a boatyard utilizing all necessary legal persuasion. It appears to us that<br />
<strong>Bainbridge</strong> has held up its end <strong>of</strong> the MOA and that WSF must counter with a consideration. A one sided non<br />
commercially viable <strong>of</strong>fer is simply not acceptable.<br />
We are all island residents. We see the value <strong>of</strong> this facility to be an anchor for future facilities such as a rowing<br />
and dinghy sailing base and a transient moorage for close to downtown service but without obscuring the<br />
waterfront park view <strong>of</strong> the harbor. A boat building school could be included. And if the Ferry system leaves,<br />
the island will have the beginnings <strong>of</strong> a first class marine center.<br />
We would like to meet with you next week at your convenience to review or proposal and drawings.<br />
Andy Parker<br />
The Parker Group
From: John Papajani<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Tue 10/12/2010 2:27 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: WSF Settlement Offers<br />
Dear Council Members,<br />
I read with interest the 10/8 summary email from Brenda Bauer to the council regarding the meeting with David<br />
Moseley <strong>of</strong> WSF. I’m encouraged by his willingness to set a market-based lease rate. While I feel the legal<br />
documents I’ve reviewed obligate WSF to much better lease terms than they are currently <strong>of</strong>fering, I am hopeful<br />
that WSF’s position will fall more in line with those obligations. I encourage COBI to act on the wishes <strong>of</strong> the<br />
island’s boaters to secure a site for a boatyard.<br />
I also wanted to reaffirm my statements at the 10/6 work session that Seaview Boatyard is confident that we can<br />
work within the conditions set forth in the Eagle Harbor Superfund Sight [sic] Conditions that were attached to<br />
Mr. Moseley’s letter <strong>of</strong> September 24th.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
John Papajani<br />
Business Manager, Seaview Boatyard
From: Jim Llewellyn<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Wed 10/13/2010 10:53 AM<br />
To: Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Debbi Lester<br />
Cc: Larry Witty<br />
Subject: Whatever hauls your boat !<br />
*THE HOLE IN THE WATER*<br />
Dear compassionate Council friends-<br />
As you already know I have way too many boats.<br />
Two <strong>of</strong> them must get hauled out every now & then. One is as old as I am<br />
(1947 Blanchard Senior Knockabout) so naturally it needs loving care.<br />
I really don’t mind paying the Port <strong>of</strong> Port Townsend a few hundred to pop<br />
them onto dry land and Lord knows there are some great eateries and<br />
drinkeries to drop money into when I’m up there getting itchy, smelly and<br />
generally miserable for the love <strong>of</strong> yachting. Naturally West Marine<br />
extracts from my back pocket a pretty penny as well.<br />
They say that a boat is “A hole in the water into which one pours money.”<br />
But, to tell you the truth, I got good training as a 3 year member <strong>of</strong> the BI<br />
Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce and get these guilty feelings when I think that I could<br />
be great if there was local “water” into which I could pour my money as I<br />
dote on my boats. The boat yard, the Chandelry, and the Pub would all<br />
benefit from haulouts I could do here.<br />
I probably wouldn’t miss the hour commute each way, either.<br />
So, I heartily support keeping money in the local watering hole (I can’t<br />
believe I just made that shameless analogy).<br />
Let’s have a boatyard/harulout HERE.<br />
Jim Llewellyn<br />
Recovering Councilman
From: William Gilbert<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Wed 10/13/2010 2:05 PM<br />
To: Council<br />
Subject: My Thhoughts re the proposasls from Mr. Moseley<br />
After considerable effort I was able to obtain a copy <strong>of</strong> Mr. Moseley’s recent letter to COBI relative to the WSF<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer to resolve the long standing issues <strong>of</strong> WSF taking over the property <strong>of</strong> Russel Trask in Eagle Harbor.<br />
The letter dealt with two different proposals:<br />
First--The State would “lease”.9 acres on tbe “east” portion <strong>of</strong> the MY for 20 years to COBI for use as a marine<br />
oriented facility, at an exorbitant figure<br />
Any one looking at the map <strong>of</strong> the MY could easily see that the sketch represent ion <strong>of</strong> the property in question<br />
is on the NW side <strong>of</strong> the My and would be difficult for public access 24/7.<br />
The second portion spoke <strong>of</strong> a “gift” <strong>of</strong> $2 million if it was used for Marine oriented facility which could become<br />
a reality within a very short period <strong>of</strong> time.<br />
The letter then went on to list that the land or the $ were to be available for COBI’s use when and if the State<br />
concurs with COBI’s pledge to observe ALL <strong>of</strong> the 13 or 14 pages <strong>of</strong> acronyms relative to the various State and<br />
Federal constraints placed upon the property.<br />
In my humble opinion it would likely take Cobi years <strong>of</strong> legal wrangling to establish the right and the funds to<br />
comply with either <strong>of</strong> the WSF proposals and this has not escaped <strong>of</strong> WSF.<br />
The State should come up with something far more reasonable and practical than the proposals in hand.<br />
William S. Gilbert
From: Andy Parker<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Wed 10/13/2010 2:43 PM<br />
To: Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Barry Peters; Bob Scales<br />
Subject: Boatyard Layout to WSF foot print<br />
To Council Members,<br />
Please see the attached drawing showing what a boatyard might look like on the WSF foot print. I believe that at<br />
some point this footprint was arrived at by developing an access road to the west side <strong>of</strong> the property and filling<br />
out the remaining .9 acres to the south. That simple. There may be various rationale proposed for gerrymandering<br />
<strong>of</strong> the lease line but basically in our opinion a boatyard can work. Also included in this drawing is a potential<br />
connection to down town, a future transient marina, and a rowing and sailing base.<br />
Thanks,<br />
Andy Parker<br />
Parker Group
Andy Parker, Page 2
From: Paul Svornich<br />
<strong>Sent</strong>: Thu 10/14/2010 12:40 PM<br />
To: Kim Brackett; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Barry Peters; Bob Scales; <strong>City</strong>Admin<br />
Cc: Tom Kane; Sandra Davis; Ross West; Mark Leese; John Peters; David Lynch; Dave Ullin<br />
Subject: Paul Svornich comments on WSF <strong>of</strong>fer to city<br />
Dear Council Members,<br />
In regards to the DOT/WSF <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> $2,000,000 or a 20 year lease on 1 acre <strong>of</strong> land I would like to <strong>of</strong>fer a few<br />
observations. First <strong>of</strong>f, from past experience I think that we can all count on the ferry system not sharing full<br />
disclosure <strong>of</strong> their agenda unless it is in their best interest to do so.<br />
It is fair to say that the Ferry System, like most state agencies, is low on funding these days. We have also all<br />
heard <strong>of</strong> studies that indicate that the current ferry maintenance yard is economically inferior to using full capacity,<br />
24 hour shipyard contractors for ferry maintenance at “full service” shipyards. If the legislature were to<br />
force the DOT to use privately owned, full service shipyards for all ferry maintenance in order to save tax payer<br />
money then it might also be in the states best interest to force the DOT to sell the Eagle Harbor Ferry maintenance<br />
yard property at some point since its high value may not justify its use as nothing but a storage facility<br />
for just a few old boats.For all we know this might already be on their internal horizon. If this were to happen<br />
the property would be sold for the highest price use and that would probably be to a developer that would build<br />
high end Condo’s and a private marina for the condo owners. To have a restriction on 2.5 acres (area A) that<br />
must be used for industrial public maritime use would decrease the value <strong>of</strong> the property significantly. Nobody<br />
wants to buy a condo that might someday have a travel lift passing by their veranda. And no developer will want<br />
to pay full price on a property that has that sort <strong>of</strong> restriction written into it.<br />
It is sad for me to see some <strong>of</strong> you jumping at the chance to forsake your only real bargaining chip (your claim<br />
on area A, not the 1 acre they are <strong>of</strong>fering) in getting a potentially very special slice <strong>of</strong> “working waterfront”<br />
sometime in the future. It saddens me to think that some <strong>of</strong> you are willing to give all that up for future generations<br />
just for a lousy $2,000,000 today. Let it go, this is chump change compared to the increase <strong>of</strong> value that<br />
the property will have if the DOT can successfully eliminate the city’s legal bind on area A. Please look into this<br />
issue with greater depth, support the hiring <strong>of</strong> a “real” negotiator and don’t sell our children and grandchildren<br />
short for a lousy few bucks that will seem even more lousy as hyperinflation begins to accelerate in future years.<br />
Please don’t be led to have the city play the part <strong>of</strong> the fool once again. Some <strong>of</strong> us are just plain tired <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Paul Svornich