Langley, port far apart on value of city marina

Published 9:00 am Saturday, March 10, 2007

LANGLEY — When it comes to the value of the Langley marina, city officials and representatives of the Port of South Whidbey are like two ships passing in the night.

Langley leaders said this week the city’s marina is worth more than $2.4 million, while port officials have said the marina is worthless given the backlog of expensive repairs needed at the facility.

While the parties are inching closer to common ground on what the realistic value of the marina is, council members said Wednesday that they won’t rush into any decisions without making sure the property transfer is equitable and legal.

City officials hope the differences on the value of the marina can be resolved so a port purchase of the property can come to pass.

Satisfying the state law is what concerns Councilman Robert Gilman most.

It’s not the money that’s important to him, but to move forward in a clean and legal manner, he said.

Gilman said research on the various parcels that make up the harbor have shown it’s valued by the county assessor at more than $740,000.

The marina structure itself is worth about $1.7 million, according to the Association of Washington Cities, the city’s insurer.

“I am not saying this is the value. Rather, it gives us some sense of the scale of true and full value,” Gilman said.

Public works director Rick Hill has said there may be as much as $500,000 worth of repairs and deferred maintenance that will be required to bring the marina up to pristine condition.

In a recent offer for the property, port officials said the value of the marina was a wash, given the amount of revenues the facility brings in and its maintenance backlog.

The port recently offered about $40,000 and other improvements at the boat harbor.

While the port sees the value of the property and structures as near zero, Gilman said the city is required by state law to demand “true value.”

In 1997, the state auditor requested an opinion from the state attorney general to clarify transfer of property from one public entity to the other.

The state came up with the conclusion that when a government transfers property to another government, the transferring agency is required to negotiate for the receipt of “full value” for the property transferred.

“Full value” has a flexible meaning, depending on the nature of the property transferred and the other circumstances of the transaction, and “value” could take forms other than monetary consideration.

The negotiating teams on the marina sale for the port and city had recently worked out a deal that would have offered the city about $100,000 for the property. But Port of South Whidbey commissioners rejected Langley’s asking price at their last meeting.

Instead, the port offered to let the city have the revenue from the marina for one year, then will make a single payment of $20,000 when they officially assume ownership in April 2008, for a total of about $40,000.

“The port, in my understanding, has maintained that their promise of future investment in the marina, should be considered as payment for the marina,” Gilman said Wednesday.

But he added that such an arrangement wouldn’t work.

“Investments into the marina don’t count. It has to come back to the city free and clear. We’re not happy to find ourselves in this bound,” Gilman said.

The city sent the proposal from the port earlier this week, said Councilman Paul Samuelson, the city’s chief negotiator. The negotiation teams hope to have a revised proposal back to the city by early next week.

A revised agreement on the property sale is expected to be ready by the council meeting on March 21.

“There will be a formal proposal,” Samuelson said.

However, reaching an agreement on the transfer of the marina is only the beginning of the partnership between the city and the port, Samuelson told his fellow council members.

“It’s the first inning in nine innings of baseball,” he said.

Councilwoman Rene Neff suggested a joint meeting or workshop between the commissioners and the council.

A meeting could help work out the kinks and address concerns on both sides, she added.

Sending the port’s proposal back to the negotiators means further delay in the transfer, which is bad news for the port authorities. If the port and city can’t agree soon, the port may have to pay a $29,000 penalty to Bremerton should the port terminate its proposed purchase of a 400-foot breakwater designed to increase moorage revenue in the marina.

“One of the drivers here is time,” Neff noted.

To show to the port that the city is committed to the property transfer, Neff suggested that the port could “park” the breakwater at the harbor while the parties work out their differences.

Mayor Neil Colburn said that the administration wouldn’t have a problem with the floats, but that there would be a number of other agencies involved in the permitting process.

Councilman Bob Waterman summed up what many locals are thinking: “Get something as fast as possible that’s legal and makes sense.”

Samuelson agreed.

“Let’s keep the eye on the ball and don’t get caught up on nickels and dimes,” Samuelson said.

The next port meeting is on 7:30 p.m. March 14 at the Freeland library.

The city council will reconvene at 6:30 p.m. on March 21 in city hall.