Betsy Peabody Sent - City of Bainbridge Island

From: Betsy Peabody 

Sent: Wed 8/18/2010 3:49 PM 

To: Council 

Cc: ‘Wini Jones’; ‘Val Tollefson’; Tami Allen; ‘Stephen Streufert’; ‘Paul Ziakin’; ‘Kevin Dwyer’; ‘John Doerschuk’; 

‘John Demeyer’; ‘Jim Reilly’; ‘Janet Knox’; ‘Grant Dull’; ‘Eric Turloff’; ‘Deb Rudnick’; ‘Cindy 

Robinson’; ‘Chris Van Dyk’; ‘Debbi Lester’ 

Subject: WSF maintenance yard 

Hello dear Council, 

I attended a meeting last night with Debbi Lester to discuss the relative merits of either retaining the rights to 

one acre of the WSF maintenance yard OR allowing WSF to buy our rights to the land for 2.1 million dollars. 

I am sending a strong vote in favor of option 1: “Getting the land.” This is a huge opportunity to improve public 

access and enhance our working waterfront in ways that will benefit boaters and the local community. 

Best of luck with the deliberations. 

Sincerely, 

Betsy Peabody 

Executive Director 

Puget Sound Restoration Fund

From: Chris Van Dyk 

Sent: Thu 8/19/2010 12:00 AM 

To: ‘Betsy Peabody’; Council 

Cc: ‘Wini Jones’; ‘Val Tollefson’; Tami Allen; ‘Stephen Streufert’; ‘Paul Ziakin’; ‘Kevin Dwyer’; ‘John Doerschuk’; 

‘John Demeyer’; ‘Jim Reilly’; ‘Janet Knox’; ‘Grant Dull’; ‘Eric Turloff’; ‘Deb Rudnick’; ‘Cindy 

Robinson’; ‘Debbi Lester’ 

Subject: RE: WSF maintenance yard 

Concur. I was there. The logic for this is compelling. 

The sense of the group was, once obtained, there will be ample opportunity to figure out how to develop the 

land, and if it cannot be used economically for active use, a more passive limited use is still good, and even a 

passive park use beats a ferry maintenance worker parking lot on waterfront property by a long shot. 

Betsy made the point, also, at the meeting, that a good portion of the two million, if we took it, would likely be 

spent figuring out to what better use it could be put... 

“..get the land..” has always been good advice, and certainly is so here, now. 

Chris Van Dyk 

Principal Owner, 

Bainbridge Media Group, Inc.

From: Val Tollefson 


To: Wini Jones; Tami Allen; Stephen Streufert; Paul Ziakin; Kevin Dwyer; John Doerschuk; John Demeyer; Jim 

Reilly; Janet Knox; Grant Dull; Eric Turloff; Deb Rudnick; Cindy Robinson; Chris Van Dyk; Betsy Peabody; 

Debbi Lester; Council 

Subject: WSF property disposition issue 

Dear Council Members, 

I understand that WSF has recently made an overture to settle the issue of its obligation to provide a portion of 

the Winslow maintenance yard for public use, perhaps as a boat haul-out facility. I also understand that WSF 

has offered COBI $2 million to be used for other undefined projects in Eagle Harbor if COBI will give up its 

claim to WSF property. 

In reaching a decision on this issue, please keep in mind two very important points. First, the proffered $2 million 

will not solve your budget problems. It would be special use money, and apparently would need to be spent 

in a relatively short time on projects in Eagle Harbor that may not even be on your current “to do” list. 

More importantly, obtaining the real property to which COBI is entitled is a necessary next step toward providing 

Bainbridge Island with a working, maritime waterfront such as has been part of our history, and which is 

a key element of almost every other waterfront city and town in Puget Sound. The opportunity to get this real 

property may not come around again. Failure to seize this opportunity would be a serious mistake. 

As the current president of the Bainbridge Island Land Trust, I have come to appreciate the fact that opportunities 

to preserve land do not necessarily present themselves at economically convenient times. But I have also 

learned that if those opportunities are not acted on, the conservation value of the property is often lost forever. I 

have also learned that Bainbridge Islanders understand the importance of preserving land for public use, and are 

willing to support the capital cost involved. I think the same principal applies to your decision on this opportunity. 

Please think about this issue with a very long-range perspective. Don’t let this property slip away. 

Val Tollefson

From: Chris Van Dyk 


To: ‘Val Tollefson’; ‘Wini Jones’; Tami Allen; ‘Stephen Streufert’; ‘Paul Ziakin’; ‘Kevin Dwyer’; ‘John Doerschuk’; 

‘John Demeyer’; ‘Jim Reilly’; ‘Grant Dull’; ‘Eric Turloff’; ‘Deb Rudnick’; ‘Cindy Robinson’; ‘Betsy 

Peabody’; ‘Debbi Lester’; Council 

Subject: RE: WSF property disposition issue 

Val’s points are excellent, and I wish to concur with all of them. 

From an ‘investment’ perspective, ‘taking the money’ now, in my view, is short-sighted. 

Revenue generating opportunity from public/private development of the property----and from informal discussion 

and review that I have had with marine industry participants, the property is large enough if used creatively, 

for uses that would both benefit the community and be profitable for a lessee----that future development will 

result in the community getting both the property, and from even nominal leasehold payment plus tax revenue, 

the investment capital with which to pursue not only that development but with revenue from a long term lease 

and taxes, other improvements around the harbor. 

Before discounting the revenue generating capability of the property, and acting in a way {‘taking the money 

now’} that precludes its use for the long term developement option, I would strongly urge the Council to formally 

approach the marketplace in the form of an RFP or other mechanism that is of minimal cost to the City. 

Unfortunately, I share the scepticism expressed by many that the City could effectively, and certainly quickly, 

conceive and invest the money in other projects with this degree of potential benefit. Regardless, the downside 

to getting the property and control over its future use is limited. Even if the City were to ultimately just sell it, 

or use it passively, whatever use could not possibly be worse or less beneficial to the community than as currently 

used by the ferry system --- a parking lot for Seattle-based ferry workers who ought to be more efficiently 

utilizing (their own) public transportation by walking, both aboard the ferry and the last quarter mile to their 

jobs..... 

As a disclaimer, I would simply note that I strongly support the continued presence of the ferry maintenance terminal 

where it is. But part of that use should be the best and highest use of the land-----either use it intensively 

for an industrial, waterfront use of demonstrable economic or recreational use for the public, or give it over to 

those who will so use it. 

With all due respect, I am, 

Sincerely yours, 

Chris Van Dyk 

Principal Owner, 

Bainbridge Media Group, Inc.

From: CINDY and GREGG ROBINSON 

Sent: Thu 8/19/2010 2:10 PM 

To: Council 

Subject: WSF land and money offer 


I attended last night’s meeting, led by Debi Lester, regarding the current proposal by WSF to deed back land to 

the COBI, and/or provide funds to further enhance projects in or around Eagle Harbor. In representing the boating 

community, I feel very strongly that if the City must choose between the land and the money, the best choice 

would be to take the land. 

Presently, Eagle Harbor is a most desireable destination for boaters in Puget Sound, but unfortunately, is not 

welcoming in the least; there is no guest moorage to speak of, and the harbor is so cluttered with liveaboards 

and derelict boats, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a safe and decent anchorage. Eagle Harbor Yacht Club 

has reciprocal arrangements with 32 other yacht clubs in the Puget Sound Region, and while we are welcome to 

use their facilities, we have very little to offer them in the way of boating ammenities. Think of the lost revenue 

as a result of turning so many people away, throughout the summer months especially. 

I look forward to the day when Eagle Harbor is returned to her maritime heritage and can welcome boaters with 

decent guest moorage and marina facilities. 

Respectfully, 

Cindy Robinson 

Commodore, Eagle Harbor Yacht Club

From: Robert Dashiell 


To: Council 

Subject: WSF Settlement 

I thought the discussion at the 8/18/10 CC workshop related to the WSF settlement offer was quite good. 

It’s difficult for anyone who his familiar with City government expect the Council to act on anything using a 

fast track (nine years to build a WFP restroom; 13 years and still going of an open water marina), but the Mayor’s 

proposal to get two groups together and fast track possible options for a Council decision seems like a very 

good plan. 

I don’t think a property appraisal is called for. I don’t see the value in that expenditure. 

And I’m going to throw my early support behind a proposal by both Bill Knobloch and Barry Peters. Take the 

money and use if for a tourism oriented marina. 

Having sailed to different marinas in Puget Sound, I sense what kind of money a marina might bring into the 

City (especially good for restaurants and bars) , and I think a marina could likely be at least break even on operating 

costs, and $2 million might be enough to cover capital expenditures. Big plus for downtown businesses. 

Plus, people come into a port to join their friends for a day or two on the water, and that can lead to overnight 

guest housing. 

And it’s also a valid use for LTAC money ... you remember ... the “Civic Improvement Fund” that is almost 

never used for Civic Improvements? A spiffy new Marina for transient vessels and a new downtown street redo 

would be a pretty sweet combination ... especially if Waterfront Park could be made to look like a properly 

maintained park ... like the waterfront area in Poulsbo. They have concerts and events that also bring in tourists 

to their waterfront. 

And one more on LTAC .... Winslow Way is clearly the island’s largest tourist attraction. If the Council is going 

to empty the LTAC account, some thought might be given to doing something tourist related on Wnslow Way. 

Benches, water fountains, art ... all could be LTAC funded. 

I think the crowd that wants to keep the WSF piece should certainly get their day in court ... some new idea may 

germinate from that side that could also be viable. 

Finally nice to have something exciting to talk about too! 

Respectfully, 

Robert Dashiell

From: Paul Ziakin 

Sent: Sat 8/21/2010 5:43 PM 

To: Council 

Subject: Bainbridge Island boat repair facilities / WSF land 

Dear City Council, 

I want to encourage all of you to work together toward the end goal of getting our waterfront property back 

from WSF. The mandate is very clear from the community, “We want our waterfront back!”. 

During this difficult financial downturn, we need to take advantage of every opportunity to engender opportunities 

for the city and the public at large to generate revenue. As a park, and nature reserve it will invite even 

more island tourists, as a much needed boat haul out and work yard, it will bring great opportunity for the small 

business owner. It will attract boaters, and even more tourist dollars. 

This community needs your help and support on this! 

Thank you for your service and please, lets work together on this great opportunity! 

Respectfully, 

Paul T. Ziakin

From: John Peters 

Sent: Fri 8/27/2010 12:42 PM 

To: Council 

Subject: GET THE LAND 

to Bainbridge City Council 

..GET THE LAND.. 

From John Peters, Harbor Commission

From: Tom Kane 


To: Council 

Subject: Re: GET THE LAND, DO NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Hi John; 

Tom Kane from the Harbor Commission. I am not convinced that the city should get the land. I looked the property 

over this morning and read the email’s. Most of the site dream could only happen if the Ferry system left 

the property and the city fell into a windfall of money. 

I also stopped by the boat rental and talked to the negative person there. He is kind of a city representative. A 

transient moorage dock out from where his float is would be a better location for people to get downtown. I 

would think for a million dollars we could build a pretty good dock depending on water depth. This if rational 

would leave money for other waterfront projects. 

To me the lease costs for a boat haulout would make it unfeasible and it of course uses up most of the .9 acres. 

Daryl McNab across the harbor has a straddle travel crane about setup for hauling out boats and would most 

probably be looking for someone to lease his system. 

All of the people that I have talked to say do not take the land. So Far they are mostly all water oriented and 

give reasons supporting problems making decisions and getting money to get the improvements done. There 

also has been a group for the transient moorage so boaters can spend money downtown. PLEASE don’t make a 

decision without checking other than the land option. This isn’t forest land. We will never get two million dollars 

offerred again. thanks Tom Kane , Harbor Commission

Paul Ziakin 


To: Council 

Subject: Winslow Boatyard 

Honored Council, 

I attended last nights city council meeting and would like to offer a few observations regarding the discussion 

on how to proceed with WSF and the property or the money decision. 

I am concerned that handing off the negotiations with WSF to the city manager is not the best approach. This 

individual has no true incentive to work for the best deal possible for the community, and it sends the message 

that “this is not that important” to WSF. This is not a simple administrative chore, this is a significant and important 

decision that has lasting and profound effects on this community! 

May I suggest that this decision demands that you do what ever it takes in the short time frame to meet with 

Mr. Mosely face to face! A contingent of you Council Members, together, representing both the property and 

the money choice would be far more effective in my opinion. 

Regarding this short time frame, part of the negotiations, and perhaps prior to, this time frame needs to be 

extended to suit our community. You need to demand more time to get things in order for such an important 

decision. 

Here is where the starting point of any negotiations for the land should be: 

* 99 year lease on property 

* Minimum to no lease rate, (WSF is a state agency, and this is for the public good) 

As for taking the money, you should consider very carefully here. 

While a lot could be done with these funds, what are you giving up? All future claim to a part of our community, 

a part of our heritage, this islands history? Are you signing away the last opportunity to restore the vitality 

and richness of our waterfront? What about the educational opportunities that will never be acted on? 

Are some extra mooring slips really worth this? 

Thank you all for your dedication and your service to this wonderful community. 

Respectfully, 

Paul and Colleen Ziakin

Wini Jones 

Sent: Sun 9/12/2010 5:35 PM 

To: Council 

Cc: Jack Johnson; Brenda Bauer 

Subject: WSF Land or $ 

Hello all, 

As you all know the WSF Maintenance Yard issue has played a leading role in Wini Jones’s passion play for 

many years. It finally looks like there may be a resolution in sight. However as Mr. Moseley’s offer becomes 

more openly discussed and appears in the press, there is a great deal of misinformation being passed on.... 

information that is conjecture and not fact. There are a great many details that need to be discussed and 

possibly negotiated by both COBI and WSF before enough is known to make an informed decision on the land 

or the money. Mosley’s letter (attached) is very vague and has lead people to assume his meaning and intention. 

Here are some questions for which you need answers in writing in order to understand either offer. 

Money: 

* What is the exact amount of money? Is it $2,000,000? His letter says “a financial package, limited to no 

more than the amount provided by the legislature in the 2010 budget”. The WSDOT 2010 Supplemental budget 

line 305 states “Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Improvement $2,104,000”. Moseley has not said how 

much of that he is offering. 

* Is Mr. Moseley the one that determines the amount to be paid? Are there others? 

* What can the money be used for? His letter says “in pursuance of another property that would meet the 

cities interest in a community boat haul out facility”. Can it be used for the building of a marina and/or fuel 

dock, or other projects in Eagle Harbor? 

* Is WSF going to be involved in approving the use of the money, if so in what way? 

* What are the criteria for approving projects to be funded by the money? 

* What is the process and timeline for paying the funds? WSF normally issues project funding against a 

contract awarded after a RFP process. 

Land: 

* In his letter he says “the parcel would most likely take the form of the space shown on the attached site 

plan”. Which space on the attached site plan. What is the exact location and size of the land he plans to make 

available? 

* He says “there are restraints and conditions that would need to go along with the use of the site”. What 

are they? 

* As directed in the WA State District Court, Tacoma Consent Judgment from 1998, WSF must supply 

regular monitoring reports to EPA. Will WSF continue their monitoring if the land is leased? 

* There are several businesses interested in using the land. Will WSF sign a lease with a private operator, or 

is COBI their choice of lessee? 

* The MOA said that a lease agreement would be for a minimum of 20 years, not a finite 20 years, or a 

maximum of 20 years. What is the maximum number of years WSF would accept as the lease length? 

* How would the lease rate be determined? WSF acquired the land at no cost. From the EPA 1996 Record 

of Decision (written at the conclusion of the Superfund cleanup of the site): “ The CDF (confined disposal 

facility) will provide .9 acres of land to be used for the expansion of the WSF maintenance facility while 

allowing continued use of an acre of the condemned property for private water-dependent marine industrial

Wini Jones, page 2 

purposes. This land use is preferred by the City of Bainbridge Island, was required under a 1974 Shorelines 

Management Act hearings board decision, and addresses citizen concerns regarding the shortage of boat repair 

facilities in Eagle Harbor.” 

Finally, the most important question to be asked whichever option is chosen; What is WSF expecting in return 

from COBI? Maybe it is nothing. There is speculation that it will be to relinquish any claim to the land, but you 

need that answer in writing. FYI, multiple times over the years various people have said that the 74 Shorelines 

Hearings Board declaration of use in perpetuity of a legally defined larger than one acre portion of the land for 

a marina or commercial boat facility was removed from the title during the 1995 Condemnation proceedings for 

the Trask land. This covenant is still on the title of the land. I have the title, have read the entire condemnation 

case, and spoken to a lawyer who acted in the case. 

My reason for sending this is that until there are answers to these questions, we should all be careful in talking 

openly about either the land or the money offer so that people are not mislead. Hopefully all these questions 

can be answered before the public forums on 9/27 and 9/28. The answers to these questions will trigger the next 

level of information needed. Maybe there is a way to combine the two options, which would really be a win for 

all us Bainbridge islanders. 

If anyone would like any of the documents I have mentioned or any more information or has a question on 

this complex issue that is so important to our community, please call or let me know. Jack and Brenda, your 

learning curve on this is pretty steep. I would be happy to help. 

Wini

From: Dennis Fisher 


To: Barry Peters; Council 

Cc: editor@bainbridgereview.com; tristan@tristanbaurick.com 

Subject: WSDOT ferry facility 

Dear Barry Peters, 

This is a response to your email of yesterday. You said: 

“Are you aware that the site is an EPA supervised superfund pollution site that WSF is responsible for 

monitoring and treating on an ongoing basis. The site is currently authorized by EPA to be used solely by WSF 

for its industrial ferry-maintenance purpose.” 

The document excerpts below show that the EPA authorizes, and WSDOT agrees to, at the least, a lease, or 

leases, for a minimum of 20 consecutive years, to a privately run water dependent industrial or commercial 

operation, of 1 acre size, or to the City of Bainbridge Island. 

You said: 

“It’s not clear to me what business activity (if any) would be permitted to operate on the site by EPA, and it’s 

not clear what businesses (if any) would find it economic to operate on a capped superfund site of that limited 

shape and size, where the city has a lease to pay and would have to charge the businesses to operate there.” 

Mark Julian provided his own capital to develop and successfully run a marine haul-out and repair business on 

that site, paying to lease the site Russell Trask. Since then, the demand for that service has only increased. 

You said: 

“On the other hand, we already have lovely waterfront sitting and walking places in Waterfront Park.” 

Winslow has been, and is slated to take 50% of the growth on Bainbridge Island. Despite the current deep 

recession, Bainbridge will continue to grow. Winslow does not have enough public waterfront for its current 

and future inhabitants to sit and walk along the waterfront. We have many more tourists come to Winslow to 

walk and shop than boaters. Even if there were 20 more public dockside moorages, which I doubt could be 

squeezed in, the ferries can and do carry far more. 

Please read the citations below, or better, read the documents in their entirety, and re-consider your leanings in 

this matter. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis Fisher

Dennis Fisher, Page 2 

EPA Superfund 

Record of Decision Amendment: 

WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR 

EPA ID: WAD009248295 

OU 03 

BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 

12/08/1995 

Reasons for Issuing ROD Amendment 

The modification to the remedy, which calls for containment of mercury hot spot sediments in a nearshore 

CDF, is protective of human health and the environment and satisfies a community issue regarding the use of 

waterfront lands in Eagle Harbor. The CDF will provide 0.9 acres of land to be used for expansion of the WSF 

maintenance facility while allowing continued use of an acre of the condemned property for private waterdependent 

marine industrial purposes. This land use is preferred by the City of Bainbridge Island, was required 

under a 1974 Shorelines Management Act hearings board decision, and addresses citizen concerns regarding the 

shortage of boat repair facilities in Eagle Harbor. 

The State of Washington concurred with the 1992 selected remedy and concurs with this ROD amendment. A 

letter of concurrence is included as Appendix B. 

1. Comments On Land Use and Boatyard 

Comment Overview: Support for the boatyard was the predominant theme in comments from individual 

members of the community. Many comments were directed at the WSDOT and either objected to the WSDOT 

terms in negotiations with Eagle Harbor boatyard or emphasized positive aspects of Eagle Harbor Boatyard. 

All emphasized the importance of retaining a place in Eagle Harbor for small boat haulout and repairs. Many 

remarked on the lack of alternative locations in the area, the importance of Bainbridge Island’s maritime 

heritage, and the jobs, tax base, high quality work, and convenience provided by this boatyard. The community 

comments clearly urged EPA to support a binding arrangement between WSDOT, the City of Bainbridge Island, 

and if possible Eagle Harbor Boatyard, for economically feasible private boatyard operations in Eagle Harbor. 

Response: Because there is not a compelling environmental need for a ROD Amendment, EPA views this input 

as critical, and considers an arrangement for such long-term future uses a condition of amending the ROD. 

2.1.2 Continued Operation of Private Boat Yard 

Approximately one acre of the BMS property is currently leased and privately operated by the Eagle Harbor 

Boat Yard as a separate boat yard and sailboat repair operation. The City of Bainbridge Island and the 

community have expressed a strong need for continued operation of a private boatyard at this site. WSDOT has 

been diligently pursuing options that would allow continued operation of a private boat yard. 

To accommodate community demand for private boatyard services, WSDOT proposes to continue leasing 

this one-acre portion of the BMS property to a private boat yard operator (possibly acting through the City of 

Bainbridge Island), and to construct a new access road and boat ramp.


Although WSDOT purchased the 3.5-acre BMS property to address identified WSF expansion needs, continued 

operation of the private boat yard at this site would reduce land available to meet Maintenance Facility needs by 

at least one acre. The Nearshore Fill is therefore necessary to assure adequate usable upland area. 

2.2.2 Private Boatyard 

As part of this Project, WSDOT is proposing to retain a private boat yard operation on one acre located within 

the northwest corner of newly purchased BMS property. In addition, an access road to a boat ramp would be 

provided along the western upland property boundary for use by the private boatyard operator. 

2.3.3 Eagle Harbor Boat Yard Improvements (1 Acre Leased Facility) 

WSDOT proposes to retain approximately one acre of the recently purchased BMS property in operation as a 

private boat yard. To accommodate continued operation of the private boatyard, WSDOT proposes to construct 

a new marine boat loading ramp to provide for boat haul out and to launch boats serviced by the private boat 

yard. This marine boat loading ramp would be constructed along the southerly side of property boundary (See 

Figure 2-2) and may be used by WSDOT for joint purposes. The boat yard operation may separately propose to 

construct a new 6,000-square-foot building within the leased site area. 

Appendix C 

Memorandum of Agreement 

WSDOT and City of Bainbridge Island 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

Between the 

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

and the 

CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 

Regarding 

LONG-TERM PRIVATE, WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIAL 

OPERATIONS 

I. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to set forth WSDOT’s agreement to enter into a 

long-term (minimum 20-years) lease on approximately 1-acre of property recently acquired by the Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) immediately adjacent to the existing Washington State Ferries 

maintenance facility. The lease will perpetuate continual use of the property for private water-dependent 

industrial or commercial operations. WSDOT’s agreement is in consideration of the City’s anticipated approval 

of WSDOT’s future development plans for the expansion of its maintenance facility. This MOA is being 

executed as part of a proposed nearshore fill alternative for the cleanup of the West Harbor Operable Unit of the 

Wyckoff /Eagle Harbor Superfund Site and is contingent thereon.


II. BACKGROUND 

WSDOT has recently acquired property in Eagle Harbor formerly owned by Bainbridge Marine Services, to 

allow for expansion of the Washington State Ferries maintenance facility. 

Concurrent with this acquisition, WSDOT has participated with PACCAR Inc. In the design of sediment 

remediation in the West Harbor Operable Unit of the Wyckoff /Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. IN consideration 

of new information obtained during the design effort, and in order to facilitate WSDOT’s facility expansion 

and address local community needs for maintaining a private boatyard facility or other private water-dependent 

industrial or commercial operations in this area, WSDOT has proposed to construct a 0.9-acre nearshore fill on 

Eagle Harbor tidelands owned by WSDOT. Project approval by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), under the authority of both Superfund and the Clean Water Act, is necessary prior to construction. 

WSDOT and the City of Bainbridge Island both understand the strong desire of the local community to 

set aside approximately 1 acre of WSDOT’s recently acquired site for long-term lease by a private waterdependent 

industrial or commercial operation such as a boatyard, consistent with the City of Bainbridge 

Island’s comprehensive land use plan and direction provided under the state Shoreline Management Act. 

Accommodation of such a private operation at the site was an objective of the WSDOT/EPA nearshore fill 

proposal. In order to provide both EPA and the local community with additional assurances that private waterdependent 

industrial or commercial operations will continue at the site, WSDOT and the City of Bainbridge 

Island have jointly developed this MOA. 

III. PROVISIONS 

In consideration of mutual promises herein, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Approval of Future Site Development Permit Applications. The City of Bainbridge Island is expected to 

approve forthcoming development plans and associated permits for the expansion of the Washington State 

Ferries maintenance terminal at Eagle Harbor. Nothing in this MOA is intended to prevent the City from 

requiring additional mitigation including, but not limited to, construction of noise and view buffers as a part of 

their normal development review and permit approval process. 

2. WSDOT agrees to enter into a long-term lease or leases, for a minimum of 20 consecutive years from the date 

of this agreement, of an approximate 1-acre area to either a private water-dependent industrial or commercial 

operation or to the City of Bainbridge Island. 

IV. EXECUTION 

This agreement becomes effective upon signature of the City of Bainbridge Island and the Washington State 

Department of Transportation.

From: Scott Sprague 

Sent: Mon 9/27/2010 10:35 PM 

To: Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Barry Peters; Bob Scales 

Subject: Boatyard Comment 

Scott B Sprague 

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 

Bainbridge Island City Council** 

280 Madison Ave. N. 

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 

Regarding: Boatyard at Winslow Ferry Property 


To those healthy individuals not infected with the boat disease, all this fuss over a boat yard must seem strange. 

Yet we are in the first era since the late 1800’s where there has not been a vessel haul-out on Bainbridge 

Island. And paradoxically there are more boats than ever.hundreds.that have this diabolical need to haul out 

routinely for the latest perceived improvement or maintenance issue. 

So now we must take our business and our checkbook elsewhere. That last line on the yard bill, the dreaded 

sales tax, goes in part to the local fiefdom of Port Townsend, Seattle, Port Orchard, Edmonds.the places we go 

to spend our hard earned money at the boat yards an communities that welcome us. Being in denial about how 

much I really spend on this boat pox, it pains me to reveal that each year I spend $400-700 for the privilege of 

working on this inside-out swimming pool (and that’s before I buy the paint and the latest gizmo.). Multiply 

that by hundreds of boats.it boggles the mind. It’s a bigger revenue stream than iced lattes. 

Environmental concerns? One of the advantages of the site at the ferry yard is the paved over surface. It seems 

to me that collection and filtering of the runoff is a good idea to keep things clean. Also, modern vacuum 

systems with sanders plugged in keep dust out of the air. Best management to keep things clean is now 

available and achievable. 

For the quantity of boats on our fair island, two boatyards, one in Winslow, and one in Eagledale, seem viable. 

So let’s get on with it. We’ve been waiting for years. 

Thank you very much, 

Scott B Sprague

From: Mark Julian 

Sent: Tue 9/28/2010 10:54 AM 

To: Bob Scales; Bill Knobloch; Barry Peters; Debbi Lester; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; 

Brenda Bauer; Kathy Cook 

Subject: WSF property options 

Dear City Council Members, 

I see that you will be discussing the WSF property on your agenda tonight. I will not be able to attend, but 

would like to provide you my comment. Having built and operated Eagle Harbor Boatyard Inc. on the current 

WSF property I thought I should offer you my perspective on the options available to the City regarding 

settlement of the Memorandum of Agreement that was signed to some degree as compensation for the loss of 

my facility. 

My feeling is that first and foremost we should be looking at which option is the best opportunity to provide 

water access and a financially healthy community for the largest number of residents of Bainbridge Island. I 

think that an expanded marina at Waterfront Park, or an expanded marina at Waterfront Park and boat ramp 

improvements elsewhere, would be of greater benefit to a larger number of people by keeping Winslow a 

vibrant and solvent community and by providing improved public access for kayakers, rowboats, rowing shells, 

the disabled and small sailboats. A haulout facility or Boat School, really serves a rather small customer base. 

The small boat type of activities I mentioned will not happen on the WSF site if it is developed as a boatyard. 

The costs for development will be too great and the only way a boatyard will survive will be to charge the 

maximum amount possible for every square foot of space and top dollar for all work performed. It will not be a 

place to stroll by the water and launch your small boat. I don’t think that it would be the “community” boatyard 

some people are hoping for. 

I will point out my major concerns with the WSF property: 

1. We have no idea how much the DOT thinks a “market rate” lease is going to cost each month. (I guess we 

do now, see link below), We do know they paid over a million dollars an acre for it fifteen years ago, plus 

cleanup costs and mitigation. The math can probably be done from there, let’s look at a likely scenario, if I 

were the property owner I would expect at least a 7% return on the lease. If the property is worth 1.75 to 2 

million dollars, that is $10,200.00 to $11,600.00 per month. Add in another 1.5 million for improvements to 

allow haulouts and repair, at a 7% rate to pay for the borrowed money and that’s another $8750.00 per month. 

$19,000.00 to $20,350.00 per month is a huge fixed overhead cost in my book, just the lease rate of $10,000.00 

per month would be onerous. 

Of course, these are just my numbers, not the States, but I would be surprised if they are very far from reality 

and they may actually be low. The point is that without these hard numbers, no potential operator can make a 

proposal that is indicative of anything other than “interest”, feasibility cannot be a consideration without the 

hard numbers. 

And I will repeat, with anywhere near these costs, the only activity that will take place on that property is an 

activity that produces maximum economic benefit to the operator. If it is developed as a boatyard, it will not be 

the “community” boatyard some people are hoping for. 

2. Given potential hazardous materials on and off the site, we have only a very rough idea what permitting and 

construction of either a ramp or a travelift pier will cost to build on that site. The one thing we can be

Mark Julian, Page 2 

sure of is that it will be extremely expensive and we do not have any money. Again, without that number no 

potential operator can make a proposal that is indicative of anything other than “interest”, feasibility cannot be a 

consideration without the hard numbers. 

3. Unless somethig has changed in recent years, the State DOT will very likely require a 90 day cancellation 

clause in any lease they write. That was stated to me many times by the DOT Real Estate Services Division, to 

be required by State law, when I was negotiating with them. I can’t imagine a community, or a private operator 

making a large investment in the property if that clause has to be included. 

4. I believe that current zoning setbacks required may make the functionality of a boatyard unlikely. 

5. Neither the City, nor WSF has funds available for a haulout pier, or ramp anywhere in the foreseeable future. 

6. If it is not going to be a working boatyard, but a place for small boats, etc. then the City still has to pay a 

high lease rate for virtually no return from a tenant and has no money for infrastructure. However, if we put a 

small boat facility at City Dock, we have no additional land costs, and we have the money to do the project. 

Permitting will also likely be much easier for an expanded City Dock because most of the over water coverage 

will be out beyond the near shore habitat area as opposed to right on the shore. 

6. If there is an operator that really wants to put a boatyard in Eagle Harbor, the opportunity exists on 

appropriately zoned land, that already has most of the infrastructure in place, on the other side of the harbor. Let 

the market for that service prevail and let a private operator put in a privately funded yard. The City does not 

need to be involved. 

Thanks for your time and dedication to the community. 

Best regards, 

Mark Julian 

Eagle Harbor Boatyard Inc. 

PS 

Washington State Ferries Director David Moseley sent a letter to the city Friday clarifying its proposal. Mosely 

wrote that the fair-market lease to the city would be $25,000 to $30,000 per month based on other WSF leases 

in Puget Sound. The city would have to get at least that much back from its renter. 

Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/27/two-visions-emerge-for-land-near-bainbridge-yard/ 

#ixzz10n6YzY7l

From: Tom Kuniholm 

Sent: Tue 9/28/2010 3:32 PM 

Subject: RE: Washington State Ferries Settlement Offer Meetings 

I can’t attend the meeting tonight, but as a boat owner and architect/planner, I strongly support a new state of the 

art, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, LEADING EDGE haul-out, fuel dock, pump-out boatyard waterfront 

use, as there is a dire need for one in central Puget Sound. It would be very economically viable and historically 

was the use there before being eliminated by the WSF storage. There is much energy going into improving the 

environmental standards of the manmade world on land, but there is great potential in this regard to improving 

the standards for the boating world. It would be natural for Bainbridge to be leading the way on the water. 

Water taxi too. 

Best, 

Tom 

Tom Kuniholm, AIA 

A r c h i t e c t

From: tom kane 


To: Council 

Cc: Tami Allen; tom kane; Mark Leese; Sandra Davis; David Lynch; Dave Ullin; Ross West 

Subject: CC mtgs- Ferry System offers 

Hi City Councilors; 

I would like to make some personal coments regarding the Citizens input meetings and where we are now. 

Bob and Debbie did a great job getting the most information possible from the meetings. The people on monday 

were interested in taking land only except for Barry Peters transient Marina did get six votes. Debbie had 

Mr Pappijani (?sp) give a presentation on a boatyard on the land site. He talked about getting financing, taking 

business away from their Seaview west yard, Costs and property shape and that he would require a much lower 

lease based on business profit. Phil Maher also gave a pitch for a wooden boat school there. Both the Boatyard/ 

Haulout and woodboat school would be good for the site and Island but do not seem likely during the current 

economic situation. Barry’s Marina program is well researched and will be good for the City and fits the money 

amount. 

There was much discussion about getting money plus land and bargaining with the Ferry system. There also was 

some concern about losing the money option by trying to negotiate or stand up to the Ferry system. One person 

offered $100 towards getting help for negotiating, eight other people offered to join him and he raised his offer 

to $500. Some of the people at the meetings have been working on this for years, there was a lot of passion and 

squeaky wheels. It would be nice if this could be related to the twenty three thousand citizens of the island. The 

only way to placate some of the people at the meetings is by further negotiation. We do not have enough information 

at this time to make decisions. Where do we go from here. 

Has someone talked to our Olympia Representatives about if our only option is to let the Ferry System (Mr 

Mosely) dictate to us. It seems that with current attempts to control Ferry System costs and the possibility of 

them having to outsource maintenance could affect their ownership of the property, but not likely. They will 

always need space for some maintenance and the tieup of some ferries. It is a perfect property for them. But 

they could certainly do with a smaller parking lot for the employees that work at this site. The rites granted by 

the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board in 1974 stated public use of the land for perpetuity. I think we 

should get the state looking a little harder into why this Covenant is not being honored. I believe the land they 

offered is a narrow strip on the west side, that won,t work for a Boatyard. We should ask for a boatyard size 

piece, with access that won’t be effected by Security changes. Maybe we can end up with the narrow strip. IN 

NO WAY SHOULD WE GIVE UP THE MONEY. 

I know the Harbor Commission is ready to help you in any way that we can. Please let us know how..

From: Bob Selzler 


To: Council; Brenda Bauer 

Cc: Ross West; Mark Leese; Tom Kane; Sandra Davis; John Peters; David Lynch; Dave Ullin; Tami Allen 

Subject: Please accept the WSDOT offer of $2,100,000 

To: BI Harbor Commssion, Council, Administration 

I encourage the HC and Council to accept and utilize the offered WSF funds ($2,000,000) for other projects in 

the harbor instead of burdening the City with an expensive, long term lease commitment on a portion of the 

ferry maintenance yard. 

The greater community would be better served by performing a rehab on the city dock and adding a small marina 

for visiting boaters. I took the following picture last Saturday which shows better than any words 

that Bainbridge is not a great venue for visitors arriving by water. These folks are doing their best to enjoy our 

city but their use of our old dock is greatly hampering access for our trailer boaters. Things get crowded down 

there and it isn’t even summer anymore. If we had a small marina like those recently presented by Barry Peters 

there would be multiple beneficiaries including our non-motorized groups having better access, less crowding 

on the main dock, more visitors to the island, etc. 

BTW, what you don’t see in this picture are the trailer boats (parked behind me) waiting to launch and other 

boats in the water waiting to haul out. It was pretty much gridlock down there with no room at the 

bottom of the ramp for locals to get in or out with their trailered vessels.

From: John Papajani 


To: Council 

Subject: WSF offer 


Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of Seaview Boatyard at last night’s work session on the 

WSF offer. I’d like to take off my Seaview Boatyard hat and don my Bainbridge Island resident’s hat. 

WSF has made the city a limited time offer with two options. Before you do anything else you need to figure out 

if their timeline is valid. What happens if you don’t perform by their deadline? Do you lose your legal claim to 

the boatyard? To answer these and other questions you need to determine your legal standing regarding the past 

agreements and rulings. I’m sure you have a legal analysis of your position. Without knowing your strengths 

you are negotiating from a position of weakness. a very bad spot to be. 

Once you determine the strength of your claim you need to ask yourselves a question - do you want an island 

boatyard? If so then fight for it. If you don’t want a boatyard then take the money, give up all future claims, and 

get on with life. 

They’ve made the boatyard lease conditions so onerous, as Mr. Knobloch characterized it, it’s obvious they 

don’t want the island to have a boatyard on their site. They’re just covering their butt by making the offer. They 

want you to take the money and go away. You seem afraid to make a counter offer which states your terms. 

Instead you are coming back to them with a “mother may I?” attitude that does nothing but show you are negotiating 

from a position of self-perceived weakness. If you determined you have a strong claim then stand up and 

negotiate. Play hardball, and don’t be bullied by the WSF folks. If you don’t come up with a signed lease and 

you really want a boatyard then you can wait to fight again at a later date. or you could still take the money and 

the game is over. At least you tried. 

Thanks for listening. 

John Papajani

From: Lee Brumley 


Subject: Bainbridge Boat Yard 

October 8, 2010 

As a citizen and registered voter of Bainbridge Island, I would urge you to look favorably upon the 

establishment of a boat yard on Bainbridge Island. It would create jobs in our community, it would offer a vital 

service to the marine industry, and it would insure that our Island’s lands are being used by and for Islander’s. 

The rental agreement must be made reasonable to insure that our island stays the vibrant community that it is. 

Thank you. 

Lee Brumley 

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

From: Peter Shorett 


Subject: Boatyard please 

Peter K. Shorett

From: Blake Reiter 


Subject: WSF-boatyard 

Hi 

I want to lend my support for a BI boatyard. There is a need, it will serve the people of BI and Kitsap county 

well, and it is in the interests of a working harbor. This is a wonderful opportunity and we should not squander 

our chance. thanks. Sincerely, Blake 

Blake E. Reiter, MD

From: Rivers Black 

Sent: Sat 10/9/2010 1:11 PM 

To: Kim Brackett; Bill Knobloch; Bob Scales; Barry Peters; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Debbi Lester 

Subject: Washington State Ferry site / Property Use proposals 

Gentlemen / Ladies: 

I have been a Bainbridge Island resident for 17 years, living in the Port Madison area. My parents lived on the 

Island for thirty (30) years. 

I realize the City is currently considering the approach to take with the Ferry site property, the leasing or 

acquisition options, and what uses of that property will be considered. I write concerning those issues. 

I am a very strong supporter of a use for the property that will allow for a boat yard. Such a facility is 

sorely needed ion the Island. The Bainbridge community is ties to the water and a huge percentage of the 

population enjoys boating in all its many forms. There are no facilities for boaters on the Island. Other than 

the convenience this would involve, it is a financial issue for the Island. We currently take our boat repair 

and repair and maintenance money off Island. Island keep that money on the Island and reinvested into our 

community. 

Please consider development of a boat yard on the site. Thanks you. 

W.L. Rivers Black 

Elaine Black

From: Merrill Robison 

Sent: Sun 10/10/2010 2:46 PM 

To: Bob Scales; Debbi Lester; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Kim Brackett; Barry Peters; Bill Knobloch; Hilary Franz 

Cc: Citymanager@c.i.bainbridge-isl.wa.us; David Moseley; Christine Rolfes 

Subject: WSFerry Community Boatyard 

The State is finally wise to hire a good smart manager for their Ferry System, David Moseley. Over the last 20 

years he is the best manager they have had, according to my values. He is smart enough to get the WSF off of 

their legal issues that are a part of the ownership of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility. I also think he is 

smart enough to know that the use of part of the facility as a Community Boatyard will not pass judgement of 

the US Security Department to allow all of us 3500 B.I. licensed boaters to mingle with the laid up or stored 

State Ferry boats on the site or worse yet in the water front of the Facility. I have recently written Rep. Jay 

Inslee to get a written position from the Security people that will allow the site to become a Community 

boatyard before COBI goes too far with the WSF system and David Moseley. 

If the US Security officials agree to a boatyard I favor the plan to use the 135 employee Parking s part of the 

boatyard and build a multistory parking facility for the employees (at State expense) plus other parking needs. 

Merrill Robison 

cc; Jay Inslee’s Postal address in Poulsbo

From: Andy Parker 


To: Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Bob Scales; Barry Peters 

Subject: Boatyard Operators OK with letter 

10/11/2010 

Dear City Council Members, 

I am writing you on behalf of a group of potential boatyard operators. In the meeting on the 6th you presented 

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 

concluded there is nothing here to deter the city from executing a market rate lease negotiation with the WSF 

except the will of the city council. 

I understand that the city is in financial trouble and this very ill timed and divisive offer is sapping city council 

attention better spent on important budget issues affecting the entire island. But the boating community has been 

given little choice but to insist that the city exercise it’s rights to the land lease and the fulfillment of the MOA 

between it and the WSF. I cannot believe that the city wants to be on the hook for purposefully signing away a 

community boatyard with a 1-2 million dollar gross, a payroll of 10-20 employees, local sales of supplies and 

services, for construction of transient marina with a seasonal income and little direct benefit to island residents. 

We have known about this offer for two weeks. Before then, no one really knew that there was an agreement in 

that a boatyard was not only possible but also agreed to. So, in two weeks we have identified operators, investors 

and financing. My group consists of a naval architect, a building architect who owned a boatyard 

in the past, and a senior corporate manager. All of us sail and have at some time privately or professionally performed 

the services that we would offer in a new boatyard. We are serious. 

At this point we are asking nothing from the city in the form of money. We are asking the city to exercise its 

fiduciary responsibility and negotiate for a boatyard utilizing all necessary legal persuasion. It appears to us that 

Bainbridge has held up its end of the MOA and that WSF must counter with a consideration. A one sided non 

commercially viable offer is simply not acceptable. 

We are all island residents. We see the value of this facility to be an anchor for future facilities such as a rowing 

and dinghy sailing base and a transient moorage for close to downtown service but without obscuring the 

waterfront park view of the harbor. A boat building school could be included. And if the Ferry system leaves, 

the island will have the beginnings of a first class marine center. 

We would like to meet with you next week at your convenience to review or proposal and drawings. 

Andy Parker 

The Parker Group

From: John Papajani 

Sent: Tue 10/12/2010 2:27 PM 

To: Council 

Subject: WSF Settlement Offers 


I read with interest the 10/8 summary email from Brenda Bauer to the council regarding the meeting with David 

Moseley of WSF. I’m encouraged by his willingness to set a market-based lease rate. While I feel the legal 

documents I’ve reviewed obligate WSF to much better lease terms than they are currently offering, I am hopeful 

that WSF’s position will fall more in line with those obligations. I encourage COBI to act on the wishes of the 

island’s boaters to secure a site for a boatyard. 

I also wanted to reaffirm my statements at the 10/6 work session that Seaview Boatyard is confident that we can 

work within the conditions set forth in the Eagle Harbor Superfund Sight [sic] Conditions that were attached to 

Mr. Moseley’s letter of September 24th. 

Sincerely, 

John Papajani 

Business Manager, Seaview Boatyard

From: Jim Llewellyn 

Sent: Wed 10/13/2010 10:53 AM 

To: Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Debbi Lester 

Cc: Larry Witty 

Subject: Whatever hauls your boat ! 

*THE HOLE IN THE WATER* 

Dear compassionate Council friends- 

As you already know I have way too many boats. 

Two of them must get hauled out every now & then. One is as old as I am 

(1947 Blanchard Senior Knockabout) so naturally it needs loving care. 

I really don’t mind paying the Port of Port Townsend a few hundred to pop 

them onto dry land and Lord knows there are some great eateries and 

drinkeries to drop money into when I’m up there getting itchy, smelly and 

generally miserable for the love of yachting. Naturally West Marine 

extracts from my back pocket a pretty penny as well. 

They say that a boat is “A hole in the water into which one pours money.” 

But, to tell you the truth, I got good training as a 3 year member of the BI 

Chamber of Commerce and get these guilty feelings when I think that I could 

be great if there was local “water” into which I could pour my money as I 

dote on my boats. The boat yard, the Chandelry, and the Pub would all 

benefit from haulouts I could do here. 

I probably wouldn’t miss the hour commute each way, either. 

So, I heartily support keeping money in the local watering hole (I can’t 

believe I just made that shameless analogy). 

Let’s have a boatyard/harulout HERE. 

Jim Llewellyn 

Recovering Councilman

From: William Gilbert 


To: Council 

Subject: My Thhoughts re the proposasls from Mr. Moseley 

After considerable effort I was able to obtain a copy of Mr. Moseley’s recent letter to COBI relative to the WSF 

offer to resolve the long standing issues of WSF taking over the property of Russel Trask in Eagle Harbor. 

The letter dealt with two different proposals: 

First--The State would “lease”.9 acres on tbe “east” portion of the MY for 20 years to COBI for use as a marine 

oriented facility, at an exorbitant figure 

Any one looking at the map of the MY could easily see that the sketch represent ion of the property in question 

is on the NW side of the My and would be difficult for public access 24/7. 

The second portion spoke of a “gift” of $2 million if it was used for Marine oriented facility which could become 

a reality within a very short period of time. 

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 

concurs with COBI’s pledge to observe ALL of the 13 or 14 pages of acronyms relative to the various State and 

Federal constraints placed upon the property. 

In my humble opinion it would likely take Cobi years of legal wrangling to establish the right and the funds to 

comply with either of the WSF proposals and this has not escaped of WSF. 

The State should come up with something far more reasonable and practical than the proposals in hand. 

William S. Gilbert

From: Andy Parker 


To: Kim Brackett; Hilary Franz; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Barry Peters; Bob Scales 

Subject: Boatyard Layout to WSF foot print 

To Council Members, 

Please see the attached drawing showing what a boatyard might look like on the WSF foot print. I believe that at 

some point this footprint was arrived at by developing an access road to the west side of the property and filling 

out the remaining .9 acres to the south. That simple. There may be various rationale proposed for gerrymandering 

of the lease line but basically in our opinion a boatyard can work. Also included in this drawing is a potential 

connection to down town, a future transient marina, and a rowing and sailing base. 

Thanks, 

Andy Parker 

Parker Group

Andy Parker, Page 2

From: Paul Svornich 


To: Kim Brackett; Kirsten Hytopoulos; Bill Knobloch; Debbi Lester; Barry Peters; Bob Scales; CityAdmin 

Cc: Tom Kane; Sandra Davis; Ross West; Mark Leese; John Peters; David Lynch; Dave Ullin 

Subject: Paul Svornich comments on WSF offer to city 


In regards to the DOT/WSF offer of $2,000,000 or a 20 year lease on 1 acre of land I would like to offer a few 

observations. First off, from past experience I think that we can all count on the ferry system not sharing full 

disclosure of their agenda unless it is in their best interest to do so. 

It is fair to say that the Ferry System, like most state agencies, is low on funding these days. We have also all 

heard of studies that indicate that the current ferry maintenance yard is economically inferior to using full capacity, 

24 hour shipyard contractors for ferry maintenance at “full service” shipyards. If the legislature were to 

force the DOT to use privately owned, full service shipyards for all ferry maintenance in order to save tax payer 

money then it might also be in the states best interest to force the DOT to sell the Eagle Harbor Ferry maintenance 

yard property at some point since its high value may not justify its use as nothing but a storage facility 

for just a few old boats.For all we know this might already be on their internal horizon. If this were to happen 

the property would be sold for the highest price use and that would probably be to a developer that would build 

high end Condo’s and a private marina for the condo owners. To have a restriction on 2.5 acres (area A) that 

must be used for industrial public maritime use would decrease the value of the property significantly. Nobody 

wants to buy a condo that might someday have a travel lift passing by their veranda. And no developer will want 

to pay full price on a property that has that sort of restriction written into it. 

It is sad for me to see some of you jumping at the chance to forsake your only real bargaining chip (your claim 

on area A, not the 1 acre they are offering) in getting a potentially very special slice of “working waterfront” 

sometime in the future. It saddens me to think that some of you are willing to give all that up for future generations 

just for a lousy $2,000,000 today. Let it go, this is chump change compared to the increase of value that 

the property will have if the DOT can successfully eliminate the city’s legal bind on area A. Please look into this 

issue with greater depth, support the hiring of a “real” negotiator and don’t sell our children and grandchildren 

short for a lousy few bucks that will seem even more lousy as hyperinflation begins to accelerate in future years. 

Please don’t be led to have the city play the part of the fool once again. Some of us are just plain tired of it. 

Sincerely, 

Paul Svornich

Betsy Peabody Sent - City of Bainbridge Island

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?