Leader photo by Brian Kelly

It appears the city of Port Townsend is expecting to move on from the Cherry Street Project and part ways with the property by selling it on the market.

The Port Townsend City Council discussed the controversial affordable housing project before deciding that likely the best path forward would be to sell.

In its August meeting, the council considered six distinct plans for the property’s fate.

The Cherry Street Building (originally called the Carmel Building) was purchased by the city in 2017 with plans to utilize the structure as a source of housing for Port Townsend’s working-class residents.

After being barged to the Quimper Peninsula from Victoria, B.C. the property has gone through two housing providers and encountered a plethora of problems from unexpected extra costs to vandalism to its now-abandoned state.

Now, the city is looking to cut its losses on the project by either selling the property on the real estate market as-is or with maximum density requirements.

Councilmembers and staff weighed six separate options to consider.

Option A would be to continue on the current path to find another affordable housing provider to take on the project at 80 percent area median income (AMI). This would cost the city $700,000 to complete and is considered to be high risk with a four-year timeline.

Selling the building and land as-is with the project scope aimed towards middle-income housing, Option B, would aim to serve up to 120 percent AMI. The city would lose an estimated $300,000. City officials consider this move to be medium risk and would take around two years to complete.

Option C is to sell it on the market as-is with no affordable housing requirements, but to require maximum density. It would be a net gain for the city at $225,000. The course of action is low risk and would take around a year to complete.

Option D, city staff’s recommended course of action, would be to sell the property as-is with zero restrictions. It would earn the city $320,000, is low risk, and would take a year to do.

The city would demolish the building with Option E, creating two lots on the land and selling them as low-density housing. It would bring in $200,000 to the city’s coffers and is considered to be low risk with a one-year timeline.

Option F would involve demolishing the Cherry Street Building and retaining the property. This would cost around $100,000, take a year to complete, and is considered as a low-risk endeavor.

After a lengthy discussion in its meeting, the council settled on options C and D as the best courses of action for the Cherry Street Project. The city has not made a final determination on the building and surrounding property, though the council is expected to make an official decision in the near future.

Councilmember Libby Wennstrom stated her preference for Option C.

“It seems like we can at least try to push for density, if we don’t get any bids then we can reevaluate,” Wennstrom said.

“It adds value to the community in a way than just saying ‘Let’s sell this to the highest bidder’ and somebody can build a beautiful mansion there. It doesn’t seem like it aligns with the value of where we want to go.”

Public Works Director Steve King weighed in on the expected timeline to sell depending on density requirements, and said: “If there are a lot of requirements, that’s usually going to be a six-month to an eight-month negotiation process … what I’m hearing tonight is not a lot of detailed requirements so I think it could be a lot less. It just depends on how many stipulations you want.”

Councilmembers and city staff determined Options E and F (which involve demolishing the building) as unlikely alternatives based on bulldozing costs.

“A private contractor can probably take down that building less expensively than we can,” King said. “So it can help preserve some of our capital investment in the building to not have us be the ones to take it down.”

“It’s right between C and D,” Councilmember Amy Howard said.

“There was broad agreement between C and D. That seems to be the sweet spot,” Wennstrom said.