HomeMy WebLinkAbout3997oRDTNANCE No. sfl
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, approving and
confirming the assessments and assessment roll of
Local Improvement District No. 362 for
construction of improvements along East Valley
Highway (84tn Avenue South) from SR L67 to
South 2L2th Street as provided by Ordinance No.
3833, and levying and assessing a part of the
costs and expenses thereof against the lots, tracts,
parcels of land and other property as shown on the
assessment roll.
RECITALS
A. The assessment roll levying the special assessments against
the property located in Local Improvement District No. 362 in the City of
Kent, Washington (the "City") has been filed with the City Clerk as
provided by law.
B. The City Council delegated under RCW 35.44.070, a special
committee of the Council composed of the members of the Public Works
Committee (the "Committee") to act as a Board of Equalization and
conduct a hearing on the assessment roll.
LTD 362
'Final Assessment Roll
1
C. Notice of the time and place of the hearing on the assessment
roll and for making objections and protests to the roll was published within
the time and in the manner provided by law, fixing the time and place of
the hearing before the Committee for October 8, 20L0, in the Council
Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington. In addition, the City Clerk
mailed written notice to each property owner shown on the roll.
D. At the time and place fixed and designated in the notice, the
Committee held the hearing and received all written protests. The
Committee continued the hearing to November 29th, as to certain affected
parcels, and concluded its hearing on that date, All persons appearing at
the hearing who wished to be heard were heard, and the Committee,
sitting and acting as the 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 parcel of land by reason of
the improvement, considered all protests.
E. After considering the entire record pertaining to the
assessment roll, the Committee entered its Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations ("Findings") regarding LID No, 362 on April 4_,20L1.
F. The City Council has considered the record and the Findings,
based upon the record considered by the Committee.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
LTD 362
Final Assess¡nent Roll
2
ORDINANCE
SECTION 7. - Roll Confirmation. The assessments and assessment
roll of Local Improvement District No. 362, established for the purpose of
constructing improvements along East Valley Highway (B4th Avenue South)
from SR 167 to South 2l2th Street, shall be and the same are approved
and confirmed in all things and respects in the total amount of
ç2,4L2,942.02, for improvements including road widening to seven lanes
to include three lanes each direction with a center turn lane; installation of
cement concrete sidewalks; removal and replacement of deteriorated
portions of existing roadway pavement; asphalt overlay; catch basins and
storm drains; driveway approach aprons and curb and gutter replacement
where necessary; traffic signal modification improvements; existing
utilities and other improvements including fire hydrants, power poles,
street light poles, mailboxes, fences and sign relocation and adjustments
as necessary; new channelization; traffic signing; additional storm
drainage including storm water detention and water quality facilities; street
trees; and sewer and water extensions and/or stubs where necessary.
SECTION 2, - 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 them as shown on the roll.
SECTION 3. - Findings. The Findings attached as Exhibit "A" are
adopted by the Council and incorporated by this reference
3 LTD 362
Final Assessment Roll
SECTION 4, -Notice of Roll. The assessment roll as approved and
confirmed shall be filed with the Finance Director of the City for collection,
and the Finance Director is authorized and directed to publish notice as
required by law stating that the roll is in the Directorrs hands for collection
and that payment of any assessment or any portion of such assessment
can be made at any time within thirty (30) days from the date of first
publication of that notice without penalty, interest or cost and that,
thereafter, the sum remaining unpaid may be paid in fifteen (15) equal
installments of principal together with accrued interest. The estimated
interest rate is stated to be 5.5o/o 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. 362. The first
installment of assessments on the assessment roll shall become due and
payable during the thirty (30) day period commencing one year after the
date of first publication by the Finance Director of notice that the
assessment roll is in his 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
thirty (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 thirty (30)
day period during which such installment is due and payable shall be
delinquent. Each delinquent installment shall be subject, at the time of
delinquency, to a charge under Kent City Code Section 3.22.030 of a
penalty levied on both principal and interest due upon that installment
equal to the rate fixed in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale
of the local improvement bonds for Local Improvement District No. 362
plus five (5) percent. All delinquent installments also shall be charged
4 LID 362
FinalAssessment Roll
interest at the rate as determined above. The collection of delinquent
installments shall be enforced in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 5, Severability. Should any section, subsection,
paragraph, or sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its
application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason or should any portion of this Ordinance be
pre-empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-
emption shall not affect their valldity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstance.
SECTION 6. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection nu mbering.
SECTION 7, - Effective Date. This ordinance shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in force five
(5) days after the date of publication.
KE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LID 362
Final Assessment Roll
5
ENDA JACOBER, C CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TO BRUBAKER, CITY ATÏORNEY
PASSED, /n day of
APPRoVEo, /i day of
PUBLISHED: 22 day of
74*,-,20Lt.
7t4 I
,2OLL,â¿sr
2OLL.
I hereby certify thatthis is a true copy of Ordinance No. 3?77
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 JACOB CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Ordinance\LID 362 Flnal Assessment Roll.docx
LTD 362
FinalAssessment Roll
6
t:.'
FINT}INGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMBNDATIONS
REGARDING LID 362
(EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY)
Pursuant to notice, the final assessment ro11 hearing on LID 362 was held on
October 18, 2010 and on November 29, 20lA at Kent City Hall. The hearing was
conducted by the City Courçil's Public Works Committee consisting of Debbie Raplee,
Dennis Higgins and Ron Harmon. Following the conclusion of the hearing, and
consideration of the testimony and evidence received, the Committee hereby submits the
following Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recornmendations.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. General Findings
1. LID 362 was fonned pursuant to Oldinance 3833, passed by the City
Council on Apiil 17,2007.
2. The LID was created to construct improvements'to East Valley Highway.
The project was designed to improve and rehabilitate East Valley Highway to the
City' s principal arterial standards.
3. The project limits ale fiom SR 167 to the south and South 212t1' Street to
the north.
4. East Valley Highway is a principal arterial with an avorage daily traffic
volume of over 21,000 vehicles. Traffic studies reveal that this volume will
continue to inclease in the future.
5. East Valley Highway was three lanes in some areas, but only two lanes in
others, resulting in congestion. A third lane was needed to relieve congestion.
Consequently, the project has been included in the City's Six Year Transpoftation
Improvement Program for a number of years.
6. In addition, the sidewalk systern was incomplete and additional sidewalks
were needed for pedestrian safety and to meet City standards. Utility extensions wete
also needed to provide a connection point outside of the new roadway section for
unserviced properties.
FfNDINCS OF FACT, CONCLT'STONS AND RECOMMENDATTONS
LID 362 (EAST VALLEY EIGEWAY)
Page I of8
Exhibit A :
7. A more detailed explanation of the project and the improvements is set
for"th in the staff report from the City Engineer to the Public Worlçs Committee,
dated August 5,2010, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 to this document.
B. Findings as to specific properties
Fifty properties were included within the boundaries of the LID. A list of
the properties, propefiy owners, and individual property assessments is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to this document.
Notices of objection to the LID final assessment roll were filed by six
parties identified in paragraph 3, below.
3. Objections were filed by the following persons:
a. Caraccioli. Assessment no. 1. Carlo Caraccioli, adult son of the
property owner, raised questions concerning the accident history in the
vicinity of his mother's property, which serves as hel residence, and asked
how the improvements would provide a benefit to the ploperty since there
was a low accident history in fi'ont of the property. Mr. Caraccioli
aclarowledged that there were some benefits derived fi'om the LID, but
disagreed with the approach and conclusions of the City's appraisers. He
also stated tliat the City increased the assessment for the property fì'orn the
time of the preliminary assessment to the time when the final assessment
roll was cornpleted. I-Ie further stated that change orders for the project
fui'ther increased the amourf of the assessment
John Truemall, an MAI appraiser hired by the owllel, provided a written
repofl and oral testirnony concerning the subject property. Mr. Trueman
stated that a lack of sales data made appraisal of the property difficult. He
agreed with the valuation determination made by the City's appraiser'
regarding the "before" value of the property, but disagreed with the City's
appraiser in regard to the "a:fiter" value of the property. In Mr. Trueman's
view, the sales information that was available indicated a property value of
$10 per squal'e foot, not the $15 per square foot value determined by the
City's appraiser.
In response to Mr. Caraccioli's testimony, City Engineer, Chad Bieren,
testifìed that, because federal funds were used to pay for part of the
project, the City had an initial MAI appraisal performed on the LID
properties later followed by a review appraisal. Mr. Bieren stated that the
prelirninary and final assessment amounts were identical and that the
change orders'for the project did not affect the amount of the property
assessrnents.
FINDINGS OF TACT, CONCLTJSIONS AND RECOI\,IMONDATIONS
LID 362 (trAST VÄLLEY ErGtrrV^Y)
1
')
r)
Page 2 of I
Robert Macaulay, an MAI appraiser, perfolmed the r'èview appraisals firr
the City. Mr. Macauley presented oral testimony and a wlitten leport on
the subject property. I-Iis report explained that a single-farnily residence is
cumently located on the subject property and that the building and
improvements on the property \ilere near the end of their economic liÍb.
He noted that the cuffent, residential use was nonconforming in that the
land is zoned Gateway Commercial. The highest and best use of the
propefty, he stated, was for commercial development. He furthel stated
that redevelopment of the property would be contingent on construction of
road infrastructure, including a sidewalk and a third traffic lane. In
addition, extension of utilities would be necessary. According to Mr.
Macauley, if the property owner had to construct fi'ontage improvements
on their own, the cost would be approximately $90,000. The assessment
to the propefty, however, was $65,000. Also, he stated that, without the
LID project, the neighborhood would not have the aesthetic appeal and
continuity the improvernents provide. Mr. Macauley concluded that the
market value of the property would increase at least as much as the LID
assessment amount.
b. Smith. Assessments no.'s 2 - 6. Testimony was presented by:
owner, John Smith; realtor, Scotl CarteL, and attorney, Michael Reynolds.
Mr. Smith testified that parcels 3, 4,5 and 6 had recently been sold at a
foreciosure sale to Sterling Bank. Only parcel no. 2 remains in his
ownership.
Mr. Carler testified that he is a leal estate broker who has worked with Mr.
Srnith for a little over a year to market the plopelties. In his view, the LID
assessment had devalued the properties. On cross-exarnination, he
aclarowledged that he is not a licensed appraiser, did not pelfbun an
appraisal of the property, nor comply with tlie requiremerfs of state law
(RCV/ 18.140.020) necessary to give a brolçeL's opinion.
The owrer's attomey, Michael Reynolds, presented oral and written
argurnent challenging tlle Committee's and the City Council's authority to
decide the final assessment role. Mr. Reynolds stated that the City has
budget problems and that the decision-makers on the City budget are the
Council members. He said that, if the City pays less toward the cost of the
LID improvements then the property owners would have to pay more.
Therefore, in Mr. Reynold's view, the party responsible for the budget
should not be making a decision on the LID that may benefit the City. FIe
stated that to do so would violate the State Appearance of Faitness Law
(RCW Chapter 42.3q.1
t State law, RCW Chapter 35.44, expressly authorizes the City Council, or a conxnitlee of the Council, to
conduct the hearing on the final assessment loll.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLI'SIONS AND RECOI\,IMENDATIONS
LID 362 (E^STV LLDY ErCIIW^Y)
Page 3 of8
t,,
Exhibit A
Robert Macaulay, the City's appraiser, was called to testify in rebuttal.
Ml. Macaulay had prepaled a written report on palcels 2 - 6"and offered
oral testimony regarding those properlies. I-Ie noted that parcel 6 was the
only improved palcel, with an office-warehouse located upon it. He stated
that the remaining parcels would sell either as access land or in
conjunction with the redevelopment or expansion of palcel 6. Mr.
Macaulay stated that he performed a special benefits analysis on the
property and detemined that the City's LID assessment amount was
reasonable
c. Tan. Assessment no. 14. At the October 8tl' hearing, the daughter
of the property owners, Roger and Narden Tan, appeared and requested a
continuance of the hearing due to the fact that her palents wele out of the
country. The Committee agreed to grant a continuance to the Tans so that
they could be present to provide testimony on November 29tt'. At ttre
November 29tr' hearing, the Chail called for the owners to provide their
testimony. The Tans were not present at the hearing aìrd no one appeared
on their behalf. It was also noted that no written submittals had been
received from the Tans.
d. RSD Knight, LLC. Assessrnerf no. 26. Property owner, Jolur
Phillips and his appraiser, Jim Price, presented testimony.
Ml. Phillips stated that there were two issues of concern to hirn: he did not
see any increase in value to his property as a result of the LID
improvements; and he was assessed for a sidewalk even though a
previously existing sidewalk had been removed by the City some yeals
earlier.
Mr. Plice, a MAI appraiser, presented oral testimony and a written report.
Mr. Price stated that he had reviewed a number of comparal¡le land sales
and concluded that thele was-a benefit to the propelty in the amount of
$10,000 --- which was 523,477 less than the assessment amount. He also
stated that, given the location of the property, a primarily industrial area,
the sidewalk did not provide a benefit to the property.
On cross-examination, it was pointed out to Mr. Price that, across B4tl'
Street, there were some shops and a restaurant. In reply, Mr. Price stated:
in that case, there might be some benefit provided by the sidewalk.
Roberl Macaulay, the City's appraiser, presented oral testirnony and a
written report on the subject property. He noted, in his lepolt and
testimony, that any expansion or significarf renovation of the property
would require. constluction of the types of implovements constructed by
the LID. I-Ie stated that the fact that the improvements were already
FINDINGS OF I?ACT, CONCLIJSIONS AND ROCOß,lMENDAT¡ONS
LID,362 (DÄST VALLtrY EICITIVÄY)
I
Page 4 of 8
constructed would be talcen into account by a puÍihaser. Mr.'Macauley
concluded that the LID assessment for the ploperty was appropriate.
e. Holm. Assessment no.'s 31,32,33,34 and 35. Susan Cole, a
tenant of the propefty, presented testimony in opposition to the LID
assessment. The owner of the property, Terry Holm, did not appear at the
hearing or present any written testimony.
Under the terms of Ms. Cole's lease, she is responsible for payment of any
property assessments. She testified that the LID improvements provide no
benefit to her business (Bubba's Place restaurant) but, instead, resulted in
a loss of business due to the LID construction limiting access to the
property resulting in customers going elsewhere,
Ms. Cole did not present testimony or a report fi'om an appraiser
On cross-examination, Ms. Cole was asked whether she was aware that
the property owner had been compensated for the loss of access and
parking. She stated that her lease was for the building only, not parking.
Robert Macaulay, the City's appraiser, presented oral testimony and a
written leport on the subject property. He coneluded that the LID
assessment was appropriate
f. MV Motels, Inc.. Assessmentno.52. Testirnony in opposition to
the LID assessment was presented by the owner, Vasram Limbasia, and
his appraiser, Mr. John Truernan, MAI.
Mr. Trueman performed an appraisal of the property and his findings wele
set forth in a written repolt dated October 1,2010. Based on his review of
property sales in the area, he fett there was not enough information to
provide a paired sales analysis to determine the value increase attributable
to the LID irnprovements. I-Ie stated, however, that the subject property
and neighborhood had experienced an increase both in current value and
in appeal due to the LID project. FIe estirnated the increase in value by
using a national cost estimate handbook issued by Marshall Valuation
Service. It was his opinion that a fair assessment for the property was
$33,600 rathel than the LID assessment of $82,094.55.
Robert Macaulay, the City's applaiser, presented oral testirnony and a
written repofi on the subject ploperty. In carrying out his review of the
property, Mr. Macauley testified tliat he plimalily looked at the land value
and made an estimate of the market value for the property befure and after
the LID implovemerfs were constructed. He also loolced at land sales in
the area. Ife stated that the fi'ontage improvements constructed would be
necessary if the property owner were to renovate, expand or redevelop the
FTNDTNGS Of. FltCTr CONCLT'STONS
^ND
R0CONIùr0NDÄl IONS
LID 362 (EAST VIrILEY trICIIlV¡tY)
Page 5 of8
property; and that is something the rnarket looks.at and coitsiders wherl
property is purchased. He further stated that the amount of the LID
assessment was lower than the cost of the improvements if constructed
today. hr his opinion, the fact that the erfire project was completed at the
same time enhanced the market appeal of the property.
Mr. Macauley concluded that the LID assessrnent was appropriale.
il. CONCLUSIONS
A. General conclusions
1 Any conclusion deerned to be a finding shall be considered as such. Any
finding deemed to be a conclusion shall be considered as such.
LID assessments must be based on the special benefits that properties
acquire as a result of implovements to the area. RC'W 35.44.010. Special
benefits are determined by cornparing the fair market value of each
property before and after the implovements are made. Tffany Fantily
Trust Corp, v. Ciry of Kent, 155, Wash. 2d 225 (2005). Once it is
determined that a property is specially benefited, any LID assessment
must be logically related to, and cannot exceed, the special benelit
amount. RCW 35.44.010; RCW 35.51.030(2). The ploperty owner has
the burden of proof of producing evidence to rebut these presumptions.
If the property owner presents sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumptions, genelally through appraisal testimony ot other evidence of
property value, the City has the burden of showing special benefits to the
property. Bellevue Plazav. Bellevue, 121 V/ash.2d397 (1993).
The special benefit analysis performed by the City rnore fairly lepresents
the special benefits to the properties within the LID boundaries than the
zone and termini valuation rnethod.
5 The City followed the applicable legal requirements for providing notice
to the affected property ov/ners.
B. Conclusions as to particular properties
The following property owners have failed to ovelcome the presumptions in favor
of the City's final assessrnent roll: Caraccioli, assessment no. 1; Smith, assessment no.'s
2,3,4,5,6;Tan, assessmetf no. 14; Holm, assessment no.'s 3I,32,33,24 and 35; and
MV Motels,Inc., assessment no.52.
FTNDTNGS OF FÂCT, CONCLUS¡ONS ÂND RECO|ì'TMEND^TIONS
LID 362 (trAST VALLEY IIIGüIVAY)
Page 6 of8
2
aJ
Exhibit A
1. Caraccioli
Ð Ms. Caraccioli's applaiser stated, in his report, that the subject site
dnd neighborhood had experienced an increase in current value and appeal
based upon information contained in a national cost estimate handbook,
whereas the City's review appraiser consideled local conditions when
calculating value. The lattel is more persuasive.
b) Ms. Caraccioli may be entitled to an exemption from paynent of
the assessrnent and the Committee recommends that the City Attorney
provide Ms. Caraccioli with information regarding the process fol
claiming an exemption.
2. Smith
a) Mr. Smith is the owner of a single property, assessment no. 2, due
to foreclosure on his other properties.
b) Mr. Smith's argurnent that the City Council was baued fi'om
making a decision on the final assessment roll due to the Appearance of
Fafuness law is dismissed. State law, RCW Chapter 35.44, expressly
authorizes Council to participate in the decision-rnaking process.
c) Mr. Srnith failed to provide valuation testimony from a licensed
appraiser, as dilected by the Committee.
3. Tan
Tire properly ownels failed to appear at the hearing or provide any
infonnation concerning their property.
4. Ilolm
Mr. I-Iolm, the property o'wnel, did not protest the assessment of his
property nor appear at the hearing.
Susan Cole, the tenant renting the building on the property, was the sole
person to appear at the hearing and provide testimony concerning the property.
Ms. Cole failed to provide valuation testirnony fiom a licensed appraiser', as
directed by the Cornmittee
5. MV Motels. Inc.
The property. ownel's appraiser incorporated genelic data into his
valuation making it less persuasive than the data compiled by the City's
appraisers. In addition, the City's valuation took into better account the marlcet
FIND¡NCS OF TIÁCT, CONCLUSIONS i{ND RECOIlIMCNDATIONS
LID 362 (E^ST VÁLLEY trrGIrlV/\Y)
Page 7 of I
Exhibit A : .
forces that have reduced the value of the properly from $15 per S'iluaie foot tó
59.25 per square foot. , ;. :
The following property owner is entitled to partial relief: RSD Knight, LLC,
assessment no.26.
6. RSD Knight. LLC
A sidewalk serving the property did exist at one time and it was removed
by the City. The cost of a nêw sidewalk should be the responsibility of the City,
not the owner.
III. RECOMMEIIDATIONS
Based upon the record before the Committee, and the foregoing findings and
conclusions, the Committee makes the following recommendations:
All assessments should remain as set forth on the Final Assessment Roll
except the assessment for RSD Knight, LLC.
All protests shouid be denied, except that of RSD Knight, LLC
The assessment for RSD Knight, LLC should be reduced by the amount
attributable to the cost of the new sidewalk, i.e., $9,994.01.
DATED this ffiy of
1
)
aJ
2071
CITY OF KENT PUBLIC V/ORKS COMMITTEE
Debbie Raplee,Dennis
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS EN¡ NTCOUITNITDATIONS
LID 362 (EAST VALLEY EIGHVYAY)
Page 8 of8
Exhibit 1
KENT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timothy J. LaPorte P.E., Public Works Director
Phone: 253-856-5500
Fax: 253-856-6500
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
WAsHrNoroN
To
Date: August 5,2010
From:
Through:
Chair Debbie Raplee and Public Works Committee Members
PW Committee Meeting Date: August L6t ?OLO
Chad Bieren, City Engineer
Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E., Public Works Director
Subject:Local Improvement District (LID) 362t Set Hearing Date for
Confirmation of Final Assessment Roll/East Valley Highway (SR
L67 to S, 212th Street)
Motion:
Move to recommend that the City Council set October 5, 2O1O at 3:OO
p.m. in the Kent City Council chambers, as the date, time and place for the
public hearing to confirm the final assessment roll for Local Improvement
District No. 362, and to designate the Public Works Committee to act as
the Board of Equalization for that hearing.
Summary:
The East Valley Highway project was on our 6-year Transportation Improvement
Program for some time for widening and rehabilitation of the pavement. The City
Engineering Section was very successful in obtaining grants for the project and
received 6 grants totaling just over 4 million dollars from 4 funding paftners. Also,
properties representing 37 percent of the assessment had signed no protest L.I.D.
Covenants and Environmental Mitigation Agreements for road improvements.
The preliminary L.I.D. hearing was held on March 20, 2007 and the City Council
passed the ordinance forming the L.I.D. and directed staff to proceed with the
project. The project is now nearly complete and the Public Works Department would
like to close out the L.I.D. Sidewalks, acceleration / deceleration lanes and utilities
are considered a special benefit to the local properties and provided the basis for the
L.I.D assessments.
Budget Impact:
The construction is near completion and we are ready to finalize the L.I.D. The
total final assessment is $2,422,936.03 which is the same as the preliminary
assessment. The next step is to schedule the public hearing on the confirmation of
the final assessment roll.
For additional information and details about the project and the L.I.D,, see
Attachment'A'.
Exhibit I
ATTACHMENT'A'
IMPROVEMENTS FOR EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY:
East Valley Highway was a 5 lane road with 2 lanes in each direction and a center
turn lane. A third through lane existed at some locations but tapered back to 2
lanes" The project improved and rehabilitated East Valley Highway to the City
principal arterial standard. The overall project limits are SR L67 to the south and S.
2L2th Street to the nofth. See the attached project map, The roadway
improvements included :. Widening to 7 lanes (3 lanes each direction with a center turn lane).. Installation of cement concrete sidewalks where sidewalks did not exist and
replacement of existing sidewalks where the road was being widened.
Included was sidewalk installation on the north side of S. 216th Street from
East Valley Highway to approximately 565 feet west of the center line of East
Valley highway to connect to the existing sidewalk on S, 216th Street.o Deteriorated portions of the existing roadway pavement were removed and
replaced.. The entire roadway area received an asphalt overlay.o Catch basins and storm drains, driveway approach aprons and curb and gutter
were replaced where necessary.. Traffic signals were modified and upgraded to accommodate the widened
road.¡ Existing utilities and other improvements such as fire hydrants, power poles,
street light poles, mailboxes, fences and signs were relocated or adjusted as
necessary.. New channelizationo New traffic signingr New illumination system.o Additional storm drainage including storm water detention and water quality
facilities.. Street trees and hydroseeding of unpaved areas.. Nine properties received sewer and or water extensions and or stubs.o Temporary erosion and sedimentation control facilities during construction,
NEED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS:
East Valley Highway is a principal arterial with an average daily traffic volume of
over 21,000 vehicles. Based on traffic studies this volume is expected to continue to
increase in the future. There was a third lane in some areas (installed by the
adjacent property owners upon development), however, it narrowed back to two
lanes in places creating congestion. The third lane is needed throughout the project
limits. Because of this need, this project was included in the City's Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program for a number of years.
The sidewalk system was incomplete; therefore additional sidewalk was needed for
pedestrian traffic and to meet City standards.
Exhibit I
Utility extensions were needed to provide a connection point outside of the new
roadway section for'unserviced properties. This eliminated the need to cut into the
roadwày section in the futuié'when utility connections are needed. This will also
reduce future connection costs for those properties.
The project;. Provided needed north-south capacity to the existing traffic system along the
East Valley highway corridor.. Improved movement of freight through the corridor.. Improved ingress and egress for the adjacent properties.. Provided a safer route for pedestrians and bicycles.o Encourages increased use of transit.. Adds additional service life to the roadway pavement.. Improves the road to City principal arterial standards.. Provides the improvements specified in previously executed L.I.D. covenants
and EMA's and will provide the improvements that will be required of future
developments along East Valley Highway.. Provides utility access for unserviced properties.
FUNDING:
The L.I.D. component assessments are as follows:
Third Lane
Sidewalk
Utility Extensions
Overlay Agreements
TOTAL
$ 1,600,000.00
$ 4LL,7LL.00
$ LgL,62t.04
$ 219,603.99
$ 2,422,936.03
The City purchased a vacant property within the project to construct the storm
water detention and treatment facilities. The assessment for this property is
$L9,644.39 which the City will pay.
ASSESSMENT METHOD:
The assessments take into consideration the entire project, including the additional
lane and sidewalk. Some properties within the L.I.D. boundary are assessed for the
third lane and sidewalk improvements, some for only one if the lane or sidewalk
already exist, and some properties receive a zero assessment where the street
frontage already has both the additional lane and sidewalk. If the improvements
exist across a portion of the property, only the portion without the improvement is
included in the assessment balculation. Properties without street frontage are not
assessed for sidewalk. There are properties along East Valley Highway within the
project limits that are not within the proposed L.I.D. boundary. These propertiesare
to the north and south of the L.I.D. area and already have the additional lane
and sidewalk so these properties cannot be assessed for these improvements.
Several properties are also assessed for utility work or asphalt overlay of the
existing roadway.
Exhibit I
The total L"I.D. amount for each assessment category is distributed to the benefiting
properties based on a square footage formula. The rate per square foot is reduced
with distance into the pr.operty (away from the roadway) and is the lowest at the
réar, The rate decreases 'with each 100 feet of property'depth from the future
frontage property line. This method is included in the state law governing L.I.D.
assessments.
Utilities (water and sewer), where required, are assessed at 100 percent of the
estimated cost to the property serviced. The grants do not cover utilities.
Three properties have executed asphalt overlay agreements with the City to share a
cost of the asphalt overlay portion of the project. These assessments are based on
the agreement and the estimated cost for the work.
SPECIAL BENEFIT TO L.I.D. PROPERTIES:
When discussing L.I.D. projects, benefit received is an impoftant issue, since benefit
is the basis for the L.I.D. assessment. Benefit is defined as the increase in property
value brought about as a direct result of the L.I.D. improvements. L.I.D.
assessments can be less than or equal to the benefit received.
Street frontage improvements benefit the property and are necessary for
development or redevelopment. These improvements provide the basis for the
L.I.D. assessments. The City requires street frontage improvements in accordance
with City ordinance as a condition of development and or redevelopment for
properties located on streets where improvements are planned.
Previously, various properties within the project area have executed No Protest
L.I.D. Covenants for road improvements in conjunction with their seeking a
development permit in lieu of actually constructing the improvements. However,
others have actually constructed improvements at the time of development. The
proposed project and local improvement district will provide the necessary
improvements to satisfy future street improvement requirements.
The City has taken the lead on improving East Valley Highway and placed the
project on the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. This allowed
the City to obtain grant funds to pay for a large poftion of the roadway improvement
costs. The grant funds help to reduce the cost of the improvements to the property
owners and lower the L.I.D. assessments. Without the grant funding, the properties
would be faced with a larger cost for the frontage improvements.
The grant funding mentioried represents the benefit to the City and general public
The L"I.D assessment however, is for the special benefit to the local properties.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT:
Upon Council passing thç Ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll, there is a
30-day per.iod in which any, portion or all of the assessment can be paid without
Exhibit 1
interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over a fifteen-year
period wherein each year's payment is one-fifteenth of the principal plus interest on
the unpaid balance. The first yearly payment is due one year after the 30 day
period. The propefty owner will receive a billing notice from the City each year.
Exhibit 2
LID 362 ASSESSMEI{TS PER PARCEL
Assm't
#Tax Paver Name IANE $s/w s
OVERLAY
s
UTILITIES
s
216TH
s/w s
GRAND
TOTAL
1 Jul¡us Caraccioli $48.926.50 $15.791.34 gM.7l7.B4
2 John L. Smith s27.489.34 $8.872.36 s21.664.3s $s8.026.05
3 John L. Smith 923.915.73 $7.718.95 $18.847.99 s50.482.67
4 lohn L, Smith 927-489.34 $8.872.36 $21.664.3s $58.026.0s
5 John L. Smith $16.550.75 $0.00 $13,043.65 s29,594.40
6 John L. Smith s27.970.40 $0.00 s27.970.40
7 Nodhwest united ProD LLC $86.4s0.36 $0.00 $86.450.36
B Willow Vista Estates LLC $73.503.51 s0.00 s73.503.51
9 W¡llow Vista Estates LLC $11.940.48 $0.00 $11.940.48
10 Sharam Familv Trust II s6s.012.29 $14.9s9.26 $79.971.ss
11 Bitnev-Grouws Comoanv 924.970.4s $0.00 s24.970.4s
L2 Campbell Cailen B + Mei Younq $8,614.6s $0.00 $8.614.6s
13 2310 Investments. Inc.$29.569.70 $0.00 s39.087.44 $68.6s7.14
14 Rooer & Narden Tan s32.392.s7 $10.454.91 sr6.2r3.26 $s9.060.74
15 2310 Investmenls. Inc.$65.104"07 $15.590.11 $80.694.18
L6 City of Kent $19.644,39 $0.00 $19,644.39
T7 OP Business Park LLC o/o Reqe s23.044.02 s7.437.60 $30.481.63
18 Alvin L & E¡leen R Atchelv $15.910.36 $5.135.17 $21.04s.s3
1g OP Business Park LLC o/o Reoe $44-718.83 al4-433.28 $59.152.1 1
20 GrouD Eioht $39.309.39 $12.687.36 $51.996,75
2L Rreef America Reit II Inc.$5.581,06 $937.90 $6.s18.96
22 Rreef America Reit II Inc.$34.210.48 s11.041.65 $45.252.13
23 Rreef America Reit II Inc.936.77t.33 $11.868.18 s48.63S.s1
24 Rreef Amer¡ca Reit II Inc.9245.207.97 $83.918.27 $329.L26.23
25 Kent 84 LLC st2.6t6.94 $0.00 $12.616.94
26 RSD Knioht LLC $23.483.13 $9.994.01 s33.477.r4
27 CBGPK PartnershiÞ $31.103.10 $10.038.72 $41.141.83
28 Garv L, Jackson s25.728.2t $8.303.94 $34.032,16
29 Marv K. Roberts s22.8r0.73 g7.362.3r $30.173.03
30 ljnivar USA $3.870.93 gl-249.37 $s-120.30
31 Terry L. Holm $5.148.83 $1.661.82 $6.810.64
32 Terrv L. Hdm $6.152.55 $1.985.77 $8.138.32
33 Terw L. Holm $19.173.81 $6.188.47 szs.362.28
34 Terru L. Holm $s.213.93 $1.682.83 $6,896.76
35 Terry L. Hdm $10.091.48 $3.2s7.09 $13.348.57
36 Griffin Jason $68.886.84 $0.00 s27.94t.99 $96.828.83
37 UPS Ground Freioht $119.555.15 $38.587.18 $11.711.03 $169.853.37
38 RLR Investments LLC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Exhibit 2
LID 362 ASSESSMENTS PER PARCEL
39 Cabot ll-walm0l LLC
s0.00 $0.0040David's Prooertv Manaqement $0.00
*45.593.744lChris Pallis/ Pallis Investments s34.468.74 $11.125.00
sL4.3r2.54 $11.443.88 $30.550,00 $s6.306.4342Chris Pallis/ Pallis Investments
$0.00 $0.00 $0.0043Flv¡no Horse ProDeties LLC
$0.00 $0.0044Xuan K. Truonq $0.00
$129.483.0045AMB Prooertv LP $0.00 $0.00 $129.483.00
Robinsion Investment $0.00 $0.00 $30.ss0.00 $30.s50.0046
$0.00 $0.00 $0.0047Robinsion Investment
977.247.8248Budqet Truck Rental LLC 953,712.72 $23.s3s.10
$0.00 $0.00 $62.179.00 $62.179.0049
Les Schwab Tire Centers of
Washinqton
$0.0{)$0.0050TSP Kent LLC $0.00
51 Blue Water ProDefties 4 LLC s27.940.02 9t2.52r.23 s40,46t.25
52 MV Motels Inc.$60.749.99 s2t.344.s6 $82.094,55
Total $1.600.000.00 $400.000.00 $219.603.99 $191.621,04 $11.711.03 s2.422.936.06