HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 11/14/19940
Sops Creek Future Service Interlocal Agreement
Brubaker distributed copies of the agreement noting that it was
very straight forward. It establishes the future sewer service
areas between Kent and the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. As
the City annexes, it will encroach upon an area currently served by
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. Brubaker noted that if we annex
into their area, would we want to try to take over a portion of
their system? Wickstrom noted that his concern is, does this
foreclose on any future option? Brubaker stated, theoretically,
this would - he noted that he didn't feel that the City could
contract away councilmanic power. Wickstrom said that if we were
to annex that area, 60% of the district would still be outside of
the City in terms of assessed value. In response to Clark,
Wickstrom explained that the breakline is: we establish what area
we would service based on our system as it exists today and as we
see it in the future; their system abuts that and they take in
everything else which is based on their long range planning. So,
the boundary is decided based on what is 'reasonable' service based
on the system we have and any amendments to it. Wickstrom said
that ours are gravity flow lines, Soos Creek is multiple pump
systems. He further noted that their system is set up so that it
will always be pumped and for us to take portions of it and put it
into ours would require new pump stations to pump into ours.
Brubaker noted that we have improved relations between the City and
the District and this would help to continue that relationship. He
said he spoke with Mike Hanis, the District's attorney and now that
we are working together, and if we establish our future service
boundaries, would they be willing to require persons who want to
connect to their system within Kent's future annexation area to
first sign a no -protest agreement before connecting. Hanis said
that yes, they would. Brubaker noted that a condition could be
added on the passage of this agreement that we amend the agreement
to include that requirement. That way we could continue to get no
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 14,1994
PRESENT: PAUL MANN
LAURIE EVEZICH
TIM
CLARK
ROGER LUBOVICH
JIM
BENNETT
MAY MILLER
DON
WICKSTROM
MR & MRS RUST
TOM
BRUBAKER
MR McDONALD
Sops Creek Future Service Interlocal Agreement
Brubaker distributed copies of the agreement noting that it was
very straight forward. It establishes the future sewer service
areas between Kent and the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. As
the City annexes, it will encroach upon an area currently served by
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. Brubaker noted that if we annex
into their area, would we want to try to take over a portion of
their system? Wickstrom noted that his concern is, does this
foreclose on any future option? Brubaker stated, theoretically,
this would - he noted that he didn't feel that the City could
contract away councilmanic power. Wickstrom said that if we were
to annex that area, 60% of the district would still be outside of
the City in terms of assessed value. In response to Clark,
Wickstrom explained that the breakline is: we establish what area
we would service based on our system as it exists today and as we
see it in the future; their system abuts that and they take in
everything else which is based on their long range planning. So,
the boundary is decided based on what is 'reasonable' service based
on the system we have and any amendments to it. Wickstrom said
that ours are gravity flow lines, Soos Creek is multiple pump
systems. He further noted that their system is set up so that it
will always be pumped and for us to take portions of it and put it
into ours would require new pump stations to pump into ours.
Brubaker noted that we have improved relations between the City and
the District and this would help to continue that relationship. He
said he spoke with Mike Hanis, the District's attorney and now that
we are working together, and if we establish our future service
boundaries, would they be willing to require persons who want to
connect to their system within Kent's future annexation area to
first sign a no -protest agreement before connecting. Hanis said
that yes, they would. Brubaker noted that a condition could be
added on the passage of this agreement that we amend the agreement
to include that requirement. That way we could continue to get no
protest agreements within our future annexation area by the
extension of utilities thru the Soos Creek system.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to
sign the Soos Creek Interlocal agreement for future service
boundary, including the amendment.
Brubaker noted that this ordinance had a erroneous legal
description attached to it. We need to adopt an ordinance which
amends the legal description for Landing Way Street 'Vacation.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to amend Ordinance
3199 with the proper legal description.
Mauritsen Access & Utility EaseMent
Wickstrom explained that this was a small piece of property left
that we have acquired in the mid -'80s on 218th St by the freeway.
The balance of the property is related to a storm detention system.
This small access road to the person's residence is actually on
city property and the intent was to keep it as part of the parcel.
In order to correct that, we want to grant them an access and
utility easement over our property in order to use that existing
road as their driveway to get to their house.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to execute all
documents necessary to grant the easement to the property at S.
218th St & SR 167.
McDonald LID Assessment
Bennett commented at this time that he has read the information
sent out by the City Attorney and noted that it was different than
what he felt before. He asked when was the last time we foreclosed
on someone's home in Kent? Evezich stated that it has been done
every year when there are more than two delinquencies of payment on
any LID regardless of whether it is residential or commercial
property. They usually do not go all the way to foreclosure;
either the property owner or the bank holding the note on the
property steps in and pays off the assessment delinquency.
Bennett said that he totally agrees with staff that payment record
has not been consistent but this City spends more on the homeless
at times than they do on a resident and feels that the Committee
should refer this back to staff ter Administration and let them deal
with it.
a
Evezich stated that originally, this issue 'came up because
Councilmember Bennett requested that the City not'mdve forward with
the foreclosure proceedings against this piece -of' residential
property. They asked us to look into whether or not there were some
options that were available to the property owner or whether there
had been a lack of communication on the part of City to the owners
of the parcel. Mr. McDonald was present at the last meeting and he
represented to the council that he was unaware of the initial
notice of the total assessment covering his property and any
subsequent notice detailing what exactly the principal and interest
payments were for each year that an installment was due. In
addition, at a point in time when he was allowed to enter into a
will -pay arrangement, it was his belief that his LID payments were
never more than $50 per month. Staff was also available for
comment and provided contradictory information, and Council
President Woods asked us for any clarifipation and any
documentation that we had to support this City's position that
there was a chronic pattern of lack of payment, 'a lack of good
faith in maintaining any payments, and that all the appropriate
notices had been made by the City and that the City had responded
to all of this obligation both by statute and by City ordinance.
Clark asked if there have been any payment within that last 12
months. Evezich stated that a total of $670.00 has been paid over
the life of the LID assessment which was originally assessed in
1988 with the first installment due in 1989. Sometime after the
third installment notice was sent and became delinquent, the City
had contacted the McDonald's and entered into a verbal agreement
with them to accept a minimum payment of $50 per'month. The
McDonald's agreed to pay this amount and to eventually bring their
account current; 4 timely payment were subsequently made, June,
July, August and Sept of 1991. The McDonalds has skipped a month
and unilaterally reduced their payments to $20 per month in Nov of
1991 and did not make another payment until Jan 1'5, 1992 in the
amount of $25. On February 21, 1992 the McDonald',s'paid $25; April
20, 1992 the McDonald's paid'$50; in June, July, and August of 1992
the McDonald's paid $50 for each month. No otherpayment was
received until a $50 payment was received on 47an 8, 1993. No
payments were received thereafter until a $50 pay;nent'was received
on Sept. 24, 1993. No payments were received thereafter until
August 2, 1994 and since August 2, 1994 they have made payments in
Sept. Oct. and possibly for November. They have inade 4 subsequent
$50 payments since they received an additional notice on August 2,
1994 where we intend to foreclose. Evezich stated that is the
entire payment history.
Mann asked if the mortgage holder has been advised of this
situation. Evezich stated that what the City's obligation is in
this situation like this is to contact the lien holders and the
name and address that we have lasted on the title report is for
Federal Mortgage and Investment which is not a Wa corporation.
Unless we know who is servicing the loan, we cannot provide them
with sufficient notice to inform them of the city's intent to
foreclose. However, Evezich $fated that she has contacted the
trustee for the beneficiary who is Federal Mortgage & Investment
and advised him of the city's intent to foreclose.
Mann recommended that this should go before the Council on the next
night (Nov 15). He felt this is a matter of our integrity as a
city.
Evezich stated that as legal representative for the City, the
statutory framework for both the formation and foreclosure process
on an LID is strictly prescribed by the State of WA Legislature and
the reason for this is because an LID assessment is similar to a
tax; however we are only taxing a percentage of people who are
especially benefitted from a certain improvement that you're
making. There is a long process to go thru; at a very early stage
of this process a person has an opportunity to protest or to appeal
to the Council or the committee that is trying to form the LID for
some kind of special deferment. Generally the deferments are only
allowed in the case of advanced age or disabilities. In addition,
the statutory framework requires in mandatory language....."if
there are more two assessments delinquent in any year after the 1st
of January, the City shall foreclose on the installments that are
delinquent and collect together w4th penalties and interests." The
obligation that we have is to our bond holders who have purchased
the warrants that we in good faith, have set forth in order to
establish the bond. There is az additional provision that sets
forth a provision that states, "if the City fails to fulfill its
obligation to its bondholders and diligently collect on those
assessments when they become dui:, than the bondholders themselves
have an action against the City.for recovery of those delinquent
assessments." So, if you are talking about the City maintaining
its integrity and fulfilling As obligations to its citizens, I
think that our obligation is clearly to maintain our triple A
rating on our bonds and to not expose the City to liability for a
lack of due diligence in the collection of overdue LID assessments.
Clark stated that it is very .clear, per the City Attorney's
comments that we are responsible in terms of carrying this out.
McDonald stated that he does not want this to go to Council. He
stated that the City could go ahead with their foreclosure and he
will "handle it".
C
Lubovich noted that this is a process that we do gvgry year and it
is initiated from Finance. As far as forecloilates,, we have a
timeline to follow by statute and we typically do not make
arrangements for payments. He said that this particular account
has been delinquent since the first payment was due.
Meeting Adjourned: 6:30 p.m.
5