Committees, Commissions & Boards, Oh My!

Two controversies brewing on the Open Space Commission raise questions about much more than the process by which the City selects and negotiates potential land acquisitions. They are representative of a disturbing trend in Bainbridge Island politics. From Winslow Tomorrow to the 2025 Growth Advisory Committee to the Open Space Commission, the City seems to take a casual approach to preserving an appearance of fairness when it comes to involving potential or even current, financial stakeholders in policy development and planning.


The Inside Scoop

The most troublesome of the recent Open Space incidents involves the relationship between Tim Bailey, a member of the Open Space Commission, and developer Kelly Samson. Bailey, an Island realtor, is Samson’s partner in at least two real estate investment companies, including Bainbridge Community Development LLC, which pulled off a real estate coup earlier this year when it purchased the much sought after Government Way property before anyone even knew it was on the market.

At some point during the time that the Commission was contemplating its most recent, and somewhat controversial, open space recommendation, known as the Williams Property, Samson was notified of the potential purchase and was presumably informed that the Commission was considering working with a developer to make the purchase possible. The subject property was neither on the market, nor did the Commission openly seek participation in the purchase from the community, the Land Trust or any other developers, investors or organizations. Yet somehow, Mr. Samson had knowledge of the proposal, made an offer the property, and the Commission looked no further for a purchaser with whom to partner.

Under the most recently publicized version of the deal, the city would buy a portion of the property in conjunction with Samson’s purchase and agree to numerous restrictions that will benefit the developable lots on Samson’s portion. (That deal, which was turned down by Council in August, is currently being renegotiated.)

While we may never know if it was Bailey who brought the deal to Samson, the fact that there is any question about a potential conflict of interest on such an influential commission is troublesome. We will also never know what other possible scenarios might have been available to the City with the involvement of another developer, the Land Trust or any other potential community partner in the purchase.

In other cities, the business relationship between Mr. Bailey and Mr. Samson might be considered an unacceptable conflict of interest. However, one need only look to the membership rolls of certain key citizen Commissions, Committees and Boards to see that this is simply business as usual on Bainbridge Island.


So Many Familiar Faces

Winslow Tomorrow, heralded by its supporters as a broad-based community effort, is in fact arguably another circumstance where the lines between private and public interests have been blurred. At the project’s inception, the Winslow Tomorrow Community Congress was the focus. While there have been some allegations that portions of the Congress were overly directed or predetermined, in particular the Parking Committee, the Congress appears to have included a reasonably fair cross-section of direct stake holders and other citizens.

Unfortunately, as critics have noted, the process became increasingly exclusive and non-public as it progressed into the "recommendations" phase, where citizen involvement was largely distilled down to staff, consultants and the Feasibility Group. Given the significance of this phase, where specific goals were to be set based upon interpretations of the earlier processes, the composition of the Feasibility Group is worth noting.

While it is not easy to discern the real estate holdings or other relevant financial interests of every participant in the Winslow Tomorrow project, or any other City endeavor, a cursory search reveals that at least three of the eleven members of the feasibility group are major Winslow landowners with plans to develop their properties, and another of the eleven is a land use attorney who has represented at least one of the landowners on the committee. Of the remaining seven, at least six are either planning, development or real estate professionals, work for the City or have another direct financial tie to the Winslow Core.

It’s worth asking whether this group, which appears to have operated largely out of the public eye, is a reasonable mix of community interests. How can City staff and consultants working day in and day out with the same financial stakeholders*, and other interested parties, maintain a reasonable professional distance and properly evaluate their participation in light of the potential, or obvious, conflicts of interest? Should our City staff and consultants, and indeed our elected officials, be put in the position of having to make these evaluations?


Who you gonna call?

All of this leaves one wondering what checks and balances exist for vetting potential conflicts of interest within any of the Citizen Commissions, Committees or Boards. The recently empaneled ethics board will not have jurisdiction over these appointed citizen advisors, so it will have to be by some other mechanism that alleged conflicts of interest or improprieties are investigated and resolved.

This brings us back to the other simmering controversy on the Open Space Commission. The last open space purchase proposed by the Commission and approved by Council, the Meigs Farm property, has come under some scrutiny following the release of a new appraisal suggesting the property may be worth less than 50% of the value paid by the City. The Open Space Commission has appointed two of its own members, Tim Bailey and former mayor Dwight Sutton, to investigate the conflict between the two appraisals. Some in the community have raised concerns regarding a possible fox guarding the hen house scenario. We’ll have to wait and see what the investigation reveals and whether the Mayor or Council will call for an additional independent study. In any case, the broader issue remains, and demands that the community take a much closer look at how the deals are being made and who is pulling the strings.


* Tim Bailey : 2025 Growth Advisory Committee (chair), Open Space Commission, Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Group
Tom Haggar: Winslow Tomorrow Congress, Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Committee, Haggar-Scribner/City Garage Study
John Waldo: 2025 Growth Advisory Committee, Winslow Tomorrow Congress – Committee Chair, Winslow Tomorrow Feasibility Group, Winslow Tomorrow Streetscape Committee

The Mudflats aren’t the Only Thing that Stinks Here

Let’s face it, Island residents are gaga for open space. The City could probably tack the words “open space” onto just about any proposal and most of us would swoon into submission. And therein lies the danger. In our eagerness to preserve open space, we risk making deals that are not in the City’s best interest, fiscally or otherwise. At worst, we risk outright exploitation.

This past week the Open Space Commission voted to ask Council to support an open space purchase that just might represent one of those “sucker deals”. The land in question is a 1.8-acre area of mostly lawn at Manzanita Bay, currently occupied by a 1970’s rambler, known as the “Williams” property. It is part of a larger parcel being sold by the Williams family. As part of the deal, developer Kelly Samson would purchase the 10.8 acres, with 9 proposed building sites, which surround the waterfront lot. The City would also acquire rights to an adjacent 5.2 acres of tidelands. The cost to the City – $1.7 million for the land, including $300,000 to Samson for an easement on an unbuildable adjacent parcel. Samson will pay $3.3 million for his purchase.

A Truly Exclusive Beach

What advocates for the purchase have failed to make note of is that the tidelands are accessible only at very low tide, at which time the area, rather than being a sandy beach like Faye Bainbridge State Park, is a mudflat. While there are surely some Island residents who enjoy mucking about, how many of them will be inclined to do so in the shadow of Samson’s proposed development?

The purchase has been described as an “opportunity to protect (an) unspoiled marine habitat”, but the tidelands do not need to be purchased by the City to be preserved – they are already protected.


A Lot of Fine Print

So you love mudflats and you are ready to sign on the dotted line. You might want to first take a closer look at the terms of the sale and then ask yourself who exactly is benefiting here?

The City will be restricted as to what it can do on property it owns. For example, in order to preserve views, not only will property owners in the Samson development be able to prune and limb trees on City property, but the City will be prohibited from planting trees with mature height exceeding 12 feet. The City must grant Samson a utility easement for any utility purposes that Samson “deems necessary”- including water, waste water and drainage. The City will also grant Samson an easement through the property to access the boathouse and to allow for the possibility of a private dock. At least one acre of the property must be subject to restrictive covenants dedicating it to public use and recreational activity in perpetuity, which effectively leaves the entire City property forever unmarketable.

Two’s a Crowd

Another potential burden on the city’s use of the property, depending on your point of view, is the vintage house on Samson’s portion of the acreage that will be donated to the City. This removal will cost the City an estimated $50,000 up front, at which time the City will begin to incur significant maintenance costs to restore and maintain this old building along with the existing rambler.

The city will then have two single-family homes on the 1.8-acre park. Will the lot retain its “park-like atmosphere” and spaces for “picnicking, hiking and large group gatherings” once it contains two houses and a carport and is surrounded by luxury homes?

Will that be Cash or Credit?

You might be surprised to hear that the City doesn’t have $1.7 million dollars sitting in a bank vault looking for a purpose. The funding method proposed for this purchase is Councilmanic Bonds (think municipal credit card). The City doesn’t have to ask the voters to approve the spending, but at the end of the day it’s the taxpayers that are ultimately liable for the debt. The debt service on just this open space purchase would be $136,000 per year.

Who Exactly is in Charge Here?

So how did this purchase go from the Williams family offering to sell the 14 acre parcel to the City, to the City agreeing to buy the 1.8 acre piece under Kelly Samson’s terms?

We know that the Open Space Commission determined early on that there was no way that the City could afford the whole property, but what happened next? It does not appear that the property was ever put on the market, nor does it appear there was an open call to potential developers, investors or benefactors in the community to partner with the City in the purchase. But somehow, behind closed doors, the deal evolved into what is now before the City Council.

The Council will decide whether or not to fund this purchase at its next meeting on August 29th.