HomeMy WebLinkAbout3513Ordinance No. 3513
["Beginning July 1, 1998"]
(Amending or Repealing Ordinances)
Repeals Ord. 3509
ORDINANCE NO. 25/3
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, repealing Ordinance No. 3509 and approving
and confirming the assessments and assessment roll of
Local Improvement District No. 351 for the construction of
a new five -lane arterial extending from Auburn Way North
(East Valley Highway) eastward up the hill to Kent Kangley
Road at 116th Avenue, as provided by Ordinance No. 3496,
and levying and assessing a part of the cost and expense
thereof against the several lots, tracts, parcels of land and
other property as shown on the assessment roll
WHEREAS, the assessment roll levying the special assessments against
the property located in Local Improvement District No. 351 in the City of Kent,
Washington (the "City"), has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council delegated under RCW 35.44.070 to a special
committee of the Council to act as the LID 351 Board of Equalization (composed of the
members of the Public Works Committee) (the `Board") the conduct of the hearing on the
assessment roll; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of hearing on the assessment roll
and for making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for the time and
in the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of hearing thereon before the
Board for the 12`" day of April, 2000, at the hour of 1:00 p.m., local time, in the Council
Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington, and further notice thereof was mailed by
the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the roll; and
1 LID 351 Final Assessment Roll
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed and designated in the notice the
hearing was held, all written protests received were considered and all persons appearing
at the hearing who wished to be heard were heard, and the Board, sitting and acting as a
Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering the roll and the special benefits to
be received by each lot, parcel and tract of land shown upon such roll, including the
increase and enhancement of the fair market value of each such parcel of land by reason
of the improvement, considered all such protests; and
WHEREAS, the Board recessed its deliberations to May 1, 2000, at which
time it met and considered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ("Findings");
and
WHEREAS, the Board entered its Findings and has forwarded them to the
Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, since enactment of Ordinance No. 3509, the Board of
Equalization has determined that it transposed references to Protests 23 and 24 in its
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations, requiring further revision; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2000, the Board revised its Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations to correct the errors referencing Protests 23 and 24;
and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3509 contained a six cent ($.06) error in the
total amount of the assessment roll; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to repeal Ordinance No.
3509 and enact and confirm by new ordinance the LID 351 Final Assessment Roll and
to incorporate the revised LID 351 Board of Revised Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations; and
2 LID 351 Final Assessment Roll
WHEREAS, the Council has brought before it for consideration the
Findings, and the exhibits and protests considered by the Board; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]: - Repealer. Ordinance No. 3509 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2: - Roll Con trmation. The assessments and assessment roll
of Local Improvement District No. 351, which has been created and established for the
purpose of constructing a new five lane arterial extending from Auburn Way North (East
Valley Highway) eastward up the hill to Kent Kangley Road at It 6 1h Avenue, as provided
by Ordinance No. 3496, as the same now stand, shall be and the same are approved and
confirmed in all things and respects in the total amount of $6,911,946.49.
SECTION 3. - Special Benefit. Each of the lots, tracts, parcels of land and
other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially
benefited by this improvement in at least the amount charged against the same, and the
assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the several assessments
appearing upon the roll. There is levied and assessed against each lot, tract or parcel of
land and other property appearing upon the roll the amount finally charged against the
same thereon.
SECTION 4. - Findings. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendations of LID 351 Board of Equalization (May 1, 2000, as revised May 30,
2000), attached hereto at Exhibit "I", are hereby adopted by the Council and incorporated
herein by this reference.
3 LID 351 Final Assessment Roll
SECTION 5. - Notice of Roll. The assessment roll as approved and
confirmed shall be filed with the Finance Division Director of the City for collection and
the Finance Division Director is authorized and directed to publish notice as required by
law stating that the roll is in her hands for collection and that payment of any assessment
thereon or any portion of such assessment can be made at any time within 30 days from
the date of first publication of such notice without penalty, interest or cost, and that
thereafter the sum remaining unpaid may be paid in 15 equal annual installments. The
estimated interest rate is stated to be 8.5% per annum, with the exact interest rate to be
fixed in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the local improvement bonds
for Local Improvement District No. 351. The first installment of assessments on the
assessment roll shall become due and payable during the 30 -day period succeeding the
date one year after the date of first publication by the Finance Division Director of notice
that the assessment roll is in her hands for collection and annually thereafter each
succeeding installment shall become due and payable in like manner. If the whole or any
portion of the assessment remains unpaid after the first 30 -day period, interest upon the
whole unpaid sum shall be charged at the rate as determined above, and each year
thereafter one of the installments, together with interest due on the unpaid balance, shall
be collected. Any installment not paid prior to expiration of the 30 -day period during
which such installment is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent. Each
delinquent installment shall be subject, at the time of delinquency, to a charge of 9%
penalty levied on both principal and interest due upon that installment, and all delinquent
installments also shall be charged interest at the rate as determined above. The collection
of such delinquent installments shall be enforced in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 6. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
4 LID 351 Final AssessmentRoU
SECTION 7. - Elective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, 6/Y CLERK
,4-1,kl 61 `t,�
P. STEPHEN DIJULIO, OF COUNSEL
ice/ -TOAA t3i2U , DFWUT� C III AT'r�Q4\At y
PASSED: day of r9&" , 2000.
APPROVED: day of �{ - 12000.
PUBLISHED: �� day of �- , 2000.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. � / 3 , passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
BRENDA JA O R, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\OrdinmeeULID351 RevlsedPinalAssessRoll. dm
5 LID 351 Final Assessment Roll
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
REGARDING LID 351
(REVISED JUNE_, 2000)
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. GENERAL LID FINDINGS
1. For over a decade, the City, King County and other regional and state agencies have
determined the need for a cross -valley arterial roadway to serve the business and citizens who
use the Kent Valley.
2. The 277`h Street Corridor Project ("Project") will provide another east/west corridor
across the Valley, connecting the East Valley Highway up the hill to the Kent-Kangley Road at
116`h Avenue.
3. In December 1999, the Kent City Council passed an ordinance which formed LID 351
for the purpose of partially funding the Project.
4. Project improvements are as follows:
1. A five lane roadway with bicycle lanes (including a separate bicycle/pedestrian
bridge and pathway across the Green River and uphill to approximately 108`h Avenue SE),
approximately sixty-six feet curb to curb, with two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane
in all areas except the bridge and hill climb and that section of the Corridor running west from
the intersection with "I" Street in the City of Auburn.
2. Bridge over the Green River.
3. Curb and gutter.
4. Cement concrete sidewalk on both sides.
5. Storm drainage improvements.
6. Street Lighting improvements.
7. Landscaping.
8. Utility modification as required.
9. Lane channelization and signing.
(WDT433760.DOC;1/00085.150002/) 1
10. 108th Street Bridge over the Corridor, with westbound onramp to the Corridor
from 108th and eastbound offramp to 1081h from the Corridor.
11. Signalization at 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road.
5. On April 12, 2000, having given notice in accordance with applicable law, the Board of
Equalization, which consisted of the members of the Public Works Committee of the Council,
(hereafter, "Board") met for the purpose of hearing any protest to the final assessment roll for
LID 351 and forwarding recommendations to the full City Council for final action. At that time
the Board received a total of 27 protests from various property owners in the LID which had
been filed in accordance with the notice and state law. Each protest was assigned a number
beginning with P1.
6. The Board heard testimony from the City and all property owners who had submitted
timely protests and wished to be heard. 18 exhibits were offered during the course of the hearing
and were given sequential numbers, beginning with one.
7. Based on the testimony, exhibits and final arguments, the Board makes the following
additional general findings, which will be followed by specific findings related to each parcel.
B. GENERAL FINDINGS AS TO ALL PARCELS
1. Prior to work commencing on the Project, all of the property owners had signed an
Environmental Mitigation Agreement (EMA) which required the owners to pay an established
dollar amount not later than 10 years from the date of the EMA if no LID were formed. Creation
of the LID and payment of the amount assessed under the LID satisfies the requirements of the
EMA. None of the properties would have been allowed to develop without either undertaking
full traffic mitigation or signing the EMA.
2. After construction of the improvements, traffic access and circulation throughout the LID
boundaries will be improved by the following:
• Providing another east/west arterial corridor from Kent's "East Hill" residential
neighborhoods, across the Green River and across the Valley.
• Providing direct access to SR 167 and the I-5 corridor to the west across the
Green River, diverting substantial traffic congestion on Kent-Kangley/Canyon Drive.
3. In developing the final assessment roll, the City initially considered using the zone and
termini method set forth in RCW 35.44.030. However, the City testified that because of the
variety of property types, sizes, development potential and zoning, the zone and termini method
was not used. In its place the special benefit analysis was used. City witnesses testified that this
method would more fairly reflect the special benefits to the various properties within the LID
boundaries. No other witnesses provided testimony to dispute this assertion.
{WDT433760.DOC;1/00085.150002/} 2
4. The City hired the firm of Macaulay & Associates, Inc. to perform the special benefit
analysis. Robert Macaulay performed the analysis and provided testimony.
5. A Summary Special Benefits Study, dated March 1, 2000, was prepared by Macaulay
and submitted as the basis for the final assessment roll. (Exhibit 4)
6. Any finding, general or specific deemed to be a conclusion, shall be considered as such.
C. FINDINGS AS TO SPECIFIC PROTESTS
1. P1, Scott and Debbie Kim. No testimony was provided.1
2. P2, Mark Patton. No testimony was provided.
3. P3, Michael Gillespie. No testimony was provided.
4. P4, Kristie Kim. No testimony was provided.
5. P5, Mannella/Hinson. Pursuant to stipulation, the assessment is to be reduced to
$88,697.40.
6. P6, Michael and Kimberly Lemos. No testimony was provided.
7. P7, Lance and Jill Rolfe. No testimony was provided.
8. P8, Dennis and Zana Heffernan.. Mrs. Heffernan provided testimony regarding the effect
of the Project on the property.
9. P9, Dr. Joseph Holly. No testimony was provided.
10. P10, Harumi hiari. No testimony was provided.
11. P11, Tai and Sue Yum. No testimony was provided.
12. P12, Dereck and Laura Cook. No testimony was provided.
13. P 13, Camilio De Guzman. No testimony was provided.
14. P14, South King County Multi -Service Center. No testimony was provided.
15. P15, J. R. Behyner — Euro Tek (Heinz and Teresa Zoller). No testimony was provided.
16. P16, Sally Roberts, agent Wade Roberts. No testimony was provided.
1 Information contained in the protest materials was considered by the Board. No witnesses provided additional
testimony.
1WDT433760.DOC;1/00085.150002/1 3
17. P17, King County Housing Authority. No testimony was provided.
18. P18, Brad and Gladys Epperly. No testimony was provided.
19. P19, KPP Properties, LLC. No testimony was provided.
20. P20, James Samuel for Samuel & Company. No testimony was provided.
21. P21, James Lindley. The property owner testified. Later the City and property owner
stipulated that the assessment should be reduced to $8,547.50.
22. P22, D. Joe Jenkins. The property owner testified as to his particular situation.
23. P23 and P24, Senior Housing Assistance Group. Arthur Martin, a management agent
testified.
24. P25, John and Roxie Wilburn. No testimony was provided.
25. P26, Tom Reichert. The agent for the property owner testified. However, it was later
determined that this property was not within the LID did not have an assessment and thus
the Board has no jurisdiction.
26. P27, Maria Mong-Diep. The property owner testified that her family does not utilize the
streets as frequently as others due to their particular situation.
II.
CONCLUSIONS
A. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Any conclusion deemed to be a finding shall be so considered.
2. Special benefits are measurable increases in the value of real property in excess of any
enhancement to the general area. It is measured as the difference between the market value of
the property without the LID project and the market value with the LID project assumed
completed.
3. Initially, the City is favored with certain presumptions: that the improvements are a
benefit to the property within the LID, the assessment is no greater than the benefit, the
assessment is equal or ratable to the assessments upon other properties similarly situated, and the
assessment is fair. In Re Indian Trail Trunk Sewer, 35 Wash. App. 840 (1983). The property
owners must present expert appraisal testimony to overcome these presumptions.
4. The special benefit analysis performed by the City more fairly reflects the special
benefits to the properties within the LID than the zone and termini method.
{WDT433760.D0C;1/00085.150002/) 4
B. CONCLUSIONS AS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
1. Protests P1 through P4, P6 through P21, P22, P24, P25 and P27 should each be denied on
the basis that the property owners have not overcome the City's presumptions.
2. With respect to P23, the assessment should be reduced to $59,263.04. The manager
submitted traffic studies which purported to show a reduced trip generation from senior housing.
The Board found that the Webster Court Apartments (P24) had a lower per unit assessment than
Meeker Court (P23) and that since the apartments were similar in use and location, the
assessments should be equalized on a per unit basis.
III.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Board recommends to the City
Council as follows:
A. Pursuant to stipulation, the Board recommends P5 assessment be reduced to
$88,697.40 and that P21 assessment be reduced to $8,547.50.
B. The Board recommends that the assessment on P23 be reduced to $59,263.04.
C. The Board recommends the following protests be DENIED: P1, P2, P3, P4, P6,
P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, 17, P18, P19, P20, P22, P24, P25 and P27.
D. As noted, P26 is not within LID and thus has no assessment.
E. The Board recommends that, except as specifically provided above, the final
assessment roll be confirmed without modification.
DATED THIS W0 '- day of May, 2000.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR LID 351
rl �-, C&4-
PACT vil\FI LES\OpenFiles\0321 \Board. Equal. Finding.052600. doc
( W DT433760. DOC; 1/00085.150002/} 5