The project formally started June 1, 2006, when Kenmore leaders and Seattle’s Urban Partners executed an agreement to negotiate and plan for the 9.6-acre development known as Kenmore Village.

On May 17 of this year, with no progress on the project in sight, Kenmore City Council began to consider essentially extending to 2014 Urban Partner’s deadline for starting the mixed-use development.

The city also is moving toward giving Urban Partners control of the existing, almost empty Kenmore Village retail strip.

For councilmembers who want the city out of the retail management business, the move seems a worthy one. For at least one of the business owners left in Kenmore Village, the idea has led to nothing but uncertainty.

Addressing critics who say the Kenmore Village plan has been mishandled, Mayor David Baker said those critics need only take a look at the economy. He said no retailers are ready to jump into expansion mode at this point, that credit remains tight and hard to obtain.

“Everybody has just backed off,” Baker said.

He added council and city staff have taken a long look at Urban Partners and believe them to be solvent and stable. Baker said he sees no reason to look for a different developer.

Councilman Allan Van Ness agreed.

“It’s unfortunate that the economic situation has taken its toll,” he said.

Urban Partners did not return a phone call requesting comment for this story.

Van Ness added a belief Urban Partners needs to have tenants — especially an anchor tenant — lined up before moving forward with any construction.

“Different grocery stores want different things,” he said.

As for switching developers, Van Ness said Kenmore officials had a second choice when they tabbed Urban Partners in 2006. He didn’t name the company, but said that firm has struggled with its projects since that time. Van Ness also argued Urban Partners has an incentive to finish the work as walking away would cost them money already invested into the venture.

Probably most notably, those dollars include $250,000 in earnest money Urban Partners paid back in 2006. If the city adopts the newest agreement as proposed, the developer would pay an additional $50,000 per year every year Kenmore Village doesn’t progress. Under the proposed ground lease, Baker noted Urban Partners also will pay the city a share of any revenue gained by leasing out space in the existing Kenmore Village.

“The question is, how much of that space is usable,” Van Ness said.

Owner of Kenmore Fitness, one of only a few tenants left in Kenmore Village, Tom Dooley said no one from City Hall or Urban Partners initially contacted him regarding the proposed ground lease, that he learned of it in a roundabout manner.

Dooley quickly added his objective is not to knock either the city or Urban Partners, but he did admit to feeling slighted by both parties. He said any change in the leasing agreement for the current Kenmore Village obviously greatly affects him.

“It really feels like I’ve kind of been thrown out with the bath water,” Dooley said.

He added that since learning of the potential ground lease, he contacted the city, which led to at least one conversation with Urban Partners about what might happen next. Still, Dooley said he got no specific answers out of that discussion.

Why hasn’t Dooley cut and run as have so many other Kenmore Village tenants, such as Grocery Outlet and Ostrom’s pharmacy?

Dooley said he put $100,000 worth of improvements into his space.

“I placed my bet here thinking I was going to be part of this development,” he said.

Long-range plans for Kenmore Village still call for a mixed-use retail/residential development replacing the existing Kenmore Village and stretching from Northeast 181st Street and 68th Avenue Northeast to the Park-and-Ride lot near Northeast 185th Street.

City Council was slated to hold a public hearing on the extension of the development agreement, the ground lease and other related questions May 24. That meeting took place after the deadline for this issue.