At our November 18, 2021 meeting, we chose a developer to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the City to develop Parcel A of the Marina Floor as described in the RFQ from our 18 November 2021 Meeting. Essentially, it was a job interview.
Drama?
After the meeting I got some feedback telling me that I was being ‘dramatic’ and that the process was ‘fine’. Wow. I hate to be that guy, but I have to respond because it was definitely not fine and if you think it was?
Remember that when you watch someone doing heart surgery on Gray’s Anatomy they do not actually know what they’re doing when it comes to heart surgery. đ I’m not trying to just be snarky. Unless one is an expert, one cannot evaluate whether any complex process is being handled properly. You can make a lot of things in life appear like people know what they’re doing. And you wouldn’t know the difference unless you really know something about heart surgery.
Again, it was a job interview. We were voting for a firm, not a plan. So think of it like how one hires a City Manager or previous police chiefs. (Notably, our last PD Chief did not go through a public interview process, but that’s another story.)
The process I expected…
- In my previous experience, if a large corporation wanted to site a culturally significant building–say Apple wanted to redo their headquarters, they would specify in the RFQ that there needed to be some number of qualified applicants before making a final selection. Let’s say three. But definitely more than one. You might need only one legit applicant for a ‘normal’ project, like an apartment building. But for something special, you’d definitely want choices.
- So if the minimum were not found, the RFQ process would automatically start over. There would be a meeting with the finalist(s) giving them feedback and asking them to re-submit. (And btw ‘rejection’ is not like, “Oh my boyfriend rejected me and sobbing.” This happens all the time in big contracts. Having to resubmit is totally normal. Sometimes it might take 3-4 go-arounds before a vendor is chosen.)
- The review committee would include subject matter experts (architect, urban planner, landscape designer) And if it were in a particularly important spot, for example a landmark for the community, perhaps even a local historian. The aesthetic significance would be obvious as well as the ‘setting’. You don’t just want a great building, you want a great building that fits within the context of the place.
- The finalists would be brought in for review by the planning committee (oops, the City Of Des Moines ended their planning commission in 2013–another story) or in our case the City Council. Because again, it’s a job interview, right? We’re giving the winner a lot of latitude. So we want a lot of reassurance and complete transparency as to who they are and what their vision is. (For example, I would want to know why they chose to put that particular hotel in their proposal rather than something more ‘inspiring’. That was their choice.)
- And we might not provide an exclusivity clause. Because remember, after only a 35 day evaluation process we approved an exclusive negotiating agreement. We told the developer that we won’t look at any other options.
The process I witnessed
In short, what we got was one legit entry, after a two week review. A company that the City Manager knows, which some CMs have experience with, while others have none. There was no public engagement. And the winner did not lead with their most inspiring work examples. Call me difficult, but this felt to me like one of those presentations where the vendor felt no great need to impress the shit out of us in order to get the job.
Why boutique hotel?
The title of the RFQ was ‘Why Not Des Moines?’ And me being me, my first thought was “Why Boutique Hotel?”
Because here’s the thing: no one ever voted on the concept of ’boutique hotel’. There has literally never been a formal discussion by the Council as to what we should do with that spot. It’s been mentioned since 2017 as one possibility, but it was always in this vague fashion, “Well, we could put a ’boutique hotel there–along with many other options of course.” And over time, that ‘could’ somehow morphed into ‘will’.
On the other hand, the 2018-2019 Council did go through a formal process to place the SR3 animal hospital on that particular spot of the Marina Floor. Same thing when we leased the space to the Quarterdeck restaurant. So the precedent is for the Council to vote on the purpose of a spot.
The land side must pay for the water side
Also, there has never been a discussion as to how much revenue should be expected. But do some *quick math on a 100 room hotel with 95% occupancy at $180 a night (according to the consultant) and then look at how much of our Sales and Lodging and B/O taxes.
OK, I’ll save you some time. The stated goal of all cumulative land side projects is to generate $3,000,000 in annual revenue for the City Of Des Moines. Everything: The Adaptive Purpose Building (APB), hotel, ferry, dry stack storage… whatever is inside that Enterprise Fund Area must generate $3M/yr. That is the bar.
Why? Because that is the finance cost for dock replacement. If these projects do not meet that standard, we would have to look somewhere else to finance dock replacement.
And just to be clear: the sum total of expected revenue from all those fabulous ideas do not come anywhere close to bringing in $3M/yr. And the Administration and my colleagues know that.
So the whole financial ‘plan’ is bogus. It simply consists of projects that our City Manager (who is also our Economic Development Director) seems to find appealing. And since he has convinced my colleagues? It’s happening.
But think about this: if the whole plan does not finance dock replacement, why aren’t we considering other ways to finance it? And while we’re doing that, stop and have a real discussion–with the entire town– about what everyone wants the Marina to be for the next 50 years.
One of those convos you cannot have…
One last detail: There is absolutely no reason why the City could not simply go to the voters and ask them for $1 a month over a period of years in order to finance every aspect of Marina Redevelopment. If one runs the numbers, the amount of such a tax would be laughably small for residents. Maybe the voters would say no, but would it hurt to ask? If the vote were yes, it would completely eliminate any pressure to make the wrong moves. It would put the City in the driver’s seat… and not the developer as seems to be the case.
Because the overwhelming message I got from listening to my colleagues was how grateful they were to be chosen. I want to be careful not to sound disparaging of the chosen developer because they really have done some stellar work, but there was this sense that somehow they were doing us a favour.
Arguments against?
it’s all one master plan…
The Des Moines Marina Association (DMMA), ie. ‘the boat owners’ want those docks fixed. Now! So they will likely view that last paragraph as entirely obstructionist. And they will also likely consider this paragraph inflammatory as hell. But the fact is that they have a perverse incentive to support whatever development occurs so long as it meets two criteria:
- That it include dock replacement.
- That it happens immediately.
In part, that is why the Marina Redevelopment is being sold as a unified package, when in fact there is no reason to do so. This marketing creates the totally artificial notion that dock replacement and land side development are somehow connected. They are not–well, except to the extent that the water connects to the land. đ (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself there.)
And it is also an inconvenient fact that leadership of the DMMA were some of the key donors for the current majority (and especially the Deputy Mayor.)
One proposal is just fine
I got a couple of people saying, “No, lots of projects get done with a single legit proposal. You bet. But not on something of this brand significance. When it’s to do with something that is key to the organisation’s identity? There is always patience.
And then were a few “You misled people! That is not the final design.” Fair enough. Maybe I’m being waaaaaaaaaay too harsh. Just grandstanding ol’ JC.
So lets look next door at a mixed used development in SeaTac opening in 2023. That project also had one legit proposal. And the initial review was also done by the City Manager. Boy do I feel stupid.
On the other hand, take a look at that proposal. This is the image the developer put in their proposal. It is an artist’s rendering of a proposed vision. They weren’t being held to that. It was simply the image they were leading with. Not bad, right?
Wanna know what it’s gonna look like when it opens in 2023? Just like that. Really. And if you look at their review process, it went through a public planning commission and the developer met with the public and the City Council multiple times and look at the specifics on their vision for the place. They did all that basically for some affordable housing apartments; not the most valuable spot in the entire City. And all that was before they even submitted a plan!
We’ve had plenty of community engagement
I am just sick of that bald faced lying. About how much there’s been, what it consisted of, even how many people were involved. This, from the consultant’s own presentation in 2019 is how much community engagement we’ve had.
200 people. In October 2017. I was there with Des Moines Historical Society President James Langston. We did the stickers. Since then the number of people who supposedly attended that event has ranged from 350 to 500 depending on the fish tale being told.
Frustration…
If you watched the discussion of the November 18 Meeting, you heard a great deal of talk about frustration. My whole argument of “be patient” was represented as mere obstructionism. It is not. We just want something INSPIRING that befits one of the most beautiful spots in the entire State Of Washington.
When my colleagues express frustration about how long we’ve waited and how many times we tried, I had to restrain a chuckle.
In a funny way, I’ve been watching the Council longer than anyone up there except Mayor Pina. My colleagues do not seem to realise that all the other so-called ‘attempts’ to re-develop the Marina were impossible because we were in the process of going broke. We never could have proceeded before because we had no money! The City had been slowly going down hill for 15 years or so until things started to turn around in 2017. So all the talk about ‘redevelopment’ was just that: Talk. In fact, this is our first legit whack at the ball. All that jazz ‘previous attempts’ is simply untrue.
I get that people are frustrated. But don’t conflate frustration over how long its taken to get here with serious attempts to develop the Marina. This really is our first serious time at the plate.
It’s the process, stupid…
However, this is the real deal breaker–the absolute worst. And it likely won’t resonate with the residents like it should But it all comes down to that boring word ‘process’.
Even if (as many people do in private) one acknowledges that there are some (cough) ‘gaps’ in the process, the reason it’s supposed to be OK is that:
“This is just the start. We’ll have plenty of time for votes and amendments.”
No we won’t. If the current majority holds ranks, they will take an up/down vote at every point. Just as there was never a vote or discussion on the purpose of that parcel and there will not be any amendments to whatever the City Manager/Economic Development Director submits.
Well first of all because I attended the last serious Marina Redevelopment
Study Session (Agenda) in 2019.
And also there’s this: In my two years on the Council, at each annual Budget vote (which this year also occurred at the same meeting Nov. 18, 2021). there is a required section for Councilmember Amendments. In both my years on the Council I have tried to present amendments for consideration. (After all, we’re supposed to be legislators, right?)
This year my amendments totaled a whopping $41,204. Out of $29,000,000. That’s a little over one tenth of one percent. And what did I want all that splashy moolah for? Well, as you can read for yourself in the link:
- Fix the web site.
- Create a public engagement program.
- Install a camera in the conference room so that committee meetings could be recorded post-COVID.
You know. Extravagances.
And in both years, the Mayor simply ignored that part of the process and went straight to an up/down vote on the entire $29,000,000. You didn’t notice that obvious violation of parliamentary process because none of my colleagues objected. He literally did not allow it. Because my colleagues were fine with it? It was fine.This is one of those things I absolutely struggle to explain to the public: The City Council polices itself entirely. There is no ‘cop’. Regardless of how egregious something may be at a meeting, if no one objects, there is literally no problem. And since the public has no idea how parliamentary process is supposed to work (or cares much), there is no oversight. If you haven’t fallen asleep reading this paragraph, I salute you.
But that is what we do in DM.
So no, things are not fine. By selecting one developer from one legit applicant in a 15 day review process by the City Manager’s dept. heads with no experts and no members of the public and where there is obvious prior ‘connections’? The entire process is suspect. All of it.
*OK, the revenue we’re talking about is in the $6.5M range. Sounds massive, right? Actually, out of the sales tax, lodging tax and B/O tax, we’re lucky to see $200k. Really. No. Really. I don’t think the public understands how much sales it takes to make a meaningful difference to a small city. Out of all that ‘tax’, most of it goes somewhere else besides the City of Des Moines. You should take that up with your State and County representatives. Seriously. Rather than new State programs that we have to claw back, I would love it if we could just keep more of the original tax and skip the middleman.
Comments
Comments are closed.