The Oak Harbor City Council members discussed ordinance 1999, which proposes changing a code to allow the city to sell, swap or otherwise dispose of park land without a vote of the people, for a final time before they will act on Aug.13.

The proposal to change the existing ordinance has sparked debate in the community, with many residents expressing opposition to an action they feel could lead to a loss of valuable public spaces. The council has talked about the issue extensively, including during a lengthy workshop meeting last week.

After reviewing over 70 public comments related to this issue, Senior Planner Ray Lindenburg broke down all potential changes to section 1.30.010 of a code that requires a public vote to dispose of park land. Other than removing the election provision entirely, Lindenburg also assessed donations and deed statement portions, environmental standards, park land per capita concerns and relocation and expansion of the food forest of Hal Ramaley Memorial Park, which is currently impeding a suggested development option for a downtown Hilton hotel.

There are five options, he said: remove park land elections; require a 1-1 ratio of land in a land swap situation and maintain the election requirement if the park land was to be sold outright or traded in a less favorable ratio to the city; maintain the election requirement for a land swap, sale or other transfer over a certain acreage or square footage of city land given; allow land swaps or transfers based on value given and received being equal or in favor of the city; and, lastly, no change at all.

Each option has pros and cons.

In a situation where a park is traded for land of equal or greater value, value would be determined by the legal department through the development agreement process, Lindenburg said, which could lead to some disagreement.

Denise Marion, an Oak Harbor resident, agreed with the difficulties of defining value fairly.

“What is the value of a white-throated sparrow’s song?” she asked.

A 1-1 swap will be challenging to accommodate, said Councilmember Jim Woessner. He only wants to expand park space; he never wants to shrink it. When trading park land, the value received should be double the value given, not equal, as park land is that valuable.

That said, he is in favor of moving the food forest to a better location, noting the difficulties people have had maintaining it in the urban space.

“Community gardens need to be in a community, right?” he said. “They need to be in a neighborhood, so the neighborhood takes ownership of that community garden, has the ability to walk out their back door, walk to that community garden, pick some fresh vegetables while they are cooking a meal. Not hop in their car, drive down to a commercial area downtown, and hope they go inside a garden where there’s nobody sleeping in tonight.”

Hal Ramaley Memorial Park, located next to Windjammer Park, is the site of a food forest where anyone can gather berries, apples, peaches and other fruit. Homeless people often hang out in the park and gather food.

Councilmember Chris Wiegenstein proposed presenting these alternative options to the community, as a portion of the people commenting are concerned about Hal Ramaley Memorial Park and the proposed development, but a majority are concerned about the ability to vote on park land in general.

“We can be unique from the rest of the cities in the state,” he said. “We don’t have to get on board just because all of them don’t do this. We’re OK being one that sets a standard that says this is how we protect what our people and our voters want as well, but we got to find a compromise in that as well because we also need the development.”

The council has received a lot of public input over the course of three meetings as well as survey results from the Main Street Association, said Mayor Ronnie Wright, suggesting the council decide without further delay.

When considering a sculpture for Flintstone Park, the city conducted an informal survey, and the council didn’t side with the majority opinion.

“The last time you went out and asked the people to do something, and then they gave you their opinion, you guys didn’t do it,” Wright told the council. “I’d be careful asking for that opinion if you’re not going to do what they want.”

Input from the developers would be helpful, said Councilmember Bryan Stucky, questioning why they haven’t commented throughout this process.

“The feedback majority, and I guess I could count surveys, but seems to be to leave things the way they are, and we’re trying to find ways to worm this through,” he said. “‘Well what about if we try this, what about if we try that, what if we try that.’ That works to a point. I think we’re at the point where it’s no.”

Stucky said that while he may have personal feelings about the matter, the public clearly supports no change, and he supports the public.

Mayor Pro Tem Tara Hizon cautioned about only considering public comments, as some of them are misinformed.

“If we make our decision based on public feedback, there would be no change. There would be no art,” she said. “People are so resistant to change, even when that change is going to be a positive development for the community.”

While public comment is not always taken at a workshop, Councilmember Eric Marshall invited those in attendance to speak. First up was Laura Renninger, an Oak Harbor resident.

“I’m disturbed by some comments that the public who have spoken or written in have not done their homework,” she said.

Hal Ramaley Memorial Park already has water and power. Swapping it for another piece of land with that level of development is likely not achievable, she said.

She also questioned the legality of changing an ordinance to benefit a private developer.

“I think you are facing a huge disenfranchisement of people who are volunteering for our parks,” she said. “I think this has the potential to really blow up in people’s faces.”

Woessner said that changing the ordinance wouldn’t be to benefit the developers, as it’s their land to do with what they wish, but to make a change to benefit the whole city’s economy.

“Is the city going to run down there and dump $100,000 into that park to enhance it right now? No,” he said. “Is it even in the capital improvement plan? No. Has it even been discussed? No. But we do have an opportunity to enhance that park. And the loss of 2,600 square feet, I’m going to say in all the years I think the most people I’ve ever seen in that park was the day we dedicated it.”

Councilmember Barbara Armes said that economic development is a dire need, and she supports changing the ordinance to make that easier.

“Downtown is begging for this, because it’s drying up,” she said. “We don’t have enough people coming in from the community to support it.”

Leaving the code unchanged is in greatest alignment with public feedback, said Amanda Bullis of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network.

“If you are worried about the public not being informed during an election cycle, then I would ask you to do the work to inform the public,” she said.

Any information that Bullis’s network has put out has come directly from the city council and the documents provided by the city, she said, and the problem lies more in how the situation was presented.

In May, Lindenburg proposed the ordinance change unrelated to any development, simply because the code was “unique.” At the most recent meeting, Lindenburg said that the change was “spurred” by the pre-application process for the hotel.

“Lack of disclosure breeds misinformation and distrust and creates an environment where your public is asking who it is you serve,” Bullis said.

In the May meeting, the land swap alternative suggestions weren’t as prevalent, and they weren’t reflected in the Whidbey Environmental Action Network’s June newsletter, Stucky said.

Bullis continued to point out flaws in the alternative options to Ordinance 1999.

A total of 26 Oak Harbor parks are not restricted by grant use or otherwise, she said. Most of these are half an acre or less. With an alternative option, the city could require a vote after a certain square footage, enabling officials to sell all 26 parks without an election.

“I still maintain that, logically, economic development is not a necessary public purpose as defined by the ordinance,” she said. “It’s not the same as sewage. It’s not putting a line through. It really needs to not be considered in that way. I mean, it wouldn’t pass an SAT multiple choice question as the right answer.”

Lindenburg will present more options based on recent feedback at the Aug. 13 council meeting, where the council is scheduled to vote.

Apples grow on a tree inside the Oak Harbor Food Forest, July 19. (Photo by Caitlyn Anderson

A raspberry on a vine inside the Oak Harbor Food Forest, July 19. (Photo by Caitlyn Anderson)

Medlar fruit grows in the Oak Harbor Food Forest, July 19. (Photo by Caitlyn Anderson)

Cherries grow from the tree inside the Oak Harbor Food Forest, July 19. (Photo by Caitlyn Anderson)

The front of the Oak Harbor Food forest, July 19. (Photo by Caitlyn Anderson)

Blackberries grow on the vine inside the Oak Harbor Food Forest, July 19. (Photo by Caitlyn Anderson)

Photo by Caitlyn Anderson Jonathan (Scooter) Fraiser and his friend repack their belongings before cleaning up and leaving the Food Forest, July 19.