HomeMy WebLinkAboutAD03-027 - Original - City of Auburn - 277th Street Corridor Project Settlement - 12/16/2003 KENT
WAGNINOTON
Interlocal Agreement
Regarding 277t'Street Corridor Project
This Agreement is entered into between the cities of Auburn and Kent, both
Washington municipal corporations.
I. RECITALS
1.1 The City of Auburn is the owner and funding agency for the construction
of the 277 h Corridor right-of-way project between Central Avenue North and the 1-167
exchange.
12 As project owner, the City of Auburn obtained funding for the project,
except agreed cost overruns, and obtained all necessary real property interests to
construct the project.
1.3 The City of Kent acted as the project manager for project construction.
Kent, together with its consultants and the City of Auburn's various engineering and
technical consultants, assumed responsibility to manage all aspects of project
construction through to final completion.
1.4 Although the Cities cooperated successfully to complete this project, one
adjoining property owner, David Monk—through his business, the White River Feed
Company—filed a lawsuit against the Cities alleging various claims of negligence,
tortious interference, and inverse condemnation. Monk v. Cities of Auburn and Kent,
King County Superior Court Cause No. 02-2-13216-2 KNT.
1.5 Because many of the claims were based on the Cities' negligence, the
Cities' insurance company, Washington Cities Insurance Authority (11WCIA"), assumed
primary defense in this matter and also paid much of the costs of defense. As these
defense costs increased, WCIA and the Cities agreed to a split cost sharing agreement
among the three (3) entities.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- 1
Monk, et al v Cities of Aubum and Kent
1.6 On September 29, 2003, Honorable Jay V. White, King County Superior
Court Judge, entered an order dismissing all tort claims made by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant Cities. As a result, the only claims remaining for trial were non-covered
claims under the Cities' agreement with their insurer. Accordingly, WCIA notified both
the City of Auburn and the City of Kent that it would no longer participate in the Cities'
defense of this case, and it would not pay any additional costs of defense in the matter
1.7 On October 6, 2003, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of a summary
judgment order eliminating its loss of access claim; however, Judge White clarified and
affirmed his original decision and denied Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration on
December 2, 2003.
1.8 The effect of Judge White's Order was to eliminate all of Plaintiff's claims
against the Cities except for a single claim in inverse condemnation. Since inverse
condemnation is based on the Cities' failure to obtain the necessary property rights to
construct and build the project, and since the City of Auburn had the sole responsibility
to obtain those property interests, it is appropriate that the City of Auburn pay all costs of
continued defense.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
II. AGREEMENT
2.1 The Cities agree that all costs paid to date as joint defense costs in the
above-referenced matter represent an appropriate and fair share to defend their
interests in this lawsuit. Neither the City of Auburn nor the City of Kent has or will make
a claim against the other for any costs incurred to date in this matter.
2.2 Because the Plaintiffs only remaining claim in this lawsuit is based on
inverse condemnation, the City of Auburn will pay all costs for legal defense of this case
through trial, including any appeals commencing on the date of Judge White's decision
on reconsideration. These costs shall also include the costs of any jury award made at
trial.
2.3 If, however, for any reason, the court allows additional claims to be added
to the lawsuit, and to the extent those claims are based all or in part on the City of Kent's
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT-2
Monk, et ai. v. Cities of Aubum and Kent
construction management of the project, the City of Kent will pay its proportionate share
of the costs of defense, of any award made at trial, and of any appeals. Accordingly,
and in deference to and respect for the City of Auburn on this and many other
interjurisdictional issues, the City of Kent will remain a party to this lawsuit and will not
move to have itself dismissed from the suit.
2.4 This Agreement will take effect and be enforceable against the parties on
the last date entered below and shall remain in effect until the expiration of all appeal
periods that pertain to this matter.
CITY OF AUBURN: CITY OF KENT:
By. By.
Its: I Mavor Its: Ma or
Date: t"I'L Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Aa.Q�4 I 1>664'f-�
Ci lerk Brenda Jacober, Clerk
APP D A ORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f2AkWA,,,,
D Preid, City y Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
P'V',MIFYEB'ApnFYr'ON11MmaM�.Go
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT-3
Monk, at at. v. Cities of Auburn and Kent