Speaker 6: Be part of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. Agenda Item five Resolution 31812 Declaring the intention of the City Council of the City of Seattle to order the construction of the Seattle Central Waterfront Improvement Program and to create a local improvement district to assess a part of the cost and expense of both. Carrying out certain of those improvements against a property especially benefit, thereby notifying all persons who desire to object to such improvements to appear and present their objections in establishing July 13th, 2018, as the date of the Council's consideration of the Waterfront Local Improvement District becomes a pending quasi judicial proceeding, the committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilmember Suarez, you have the floor. And when we get to a vote, I'll probably call for a roll call vote. So Councilmember Bagshaw will be able to recuse herself. Councilmember where she had the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President The Civic Development, Public Asset and Native Communities Committee had two meetings to review this legislation on May 2nd and May 16th. At both committee hearings, we had well over 40 people attend and provide us with public comment. And for that, I want to thank you for coming downtown and sharing your concerns. This resolution would establish the council's intent to review a proposed slide. The resolution does not form the lid. The resolution does set for the public hearing dates July 13th, July 17th, July 18th, and July 28th for a total of four. July 13 will be the date that this issue will be pending before a hearing examiner and subject to council's quasi judicial rules. If Council passes this resolution, we will be delegating the facilitation of the public hearings to the hearing. Examiner That is an administrative law judge. The hearing examiner will hold four public hearings and prepare a summary report for council due to us by September 4th, members of the public can continue to send questions and comments to council members, and our officers are free to respond until July 12th. As again, as I stated Friday, July 13th, public hearings will begin and all communications should be directed to the hearing examiner so that I can be part of the summary record, the report, and certainly give you an opportunity of those four dates to state your concerns that you have done through our committee as well. Council members should at that point refrain from all ex parte communication. The full review of the LED proposal will continue into 2019. I want to make sure that everyone is aware that this action is really to begin the legislative review process and that there is a lot of process still to come. We will be addressing or they will be addressing the legal concerns, due process, the constitutionality, the legal authority via state law for the city council, via a resolution or ordinance to initiate this particular process within this process. Obviously, the waterfront has issued or has addressed displacement, race and social justice deferral programs for low income seniors, nonprofit organizations , 20 year deferrals, and those with disabilities. Those deferral programs were outlined during committee. Under state law for seniors or S.W.A.T. for 28, for the disabled or S.W.A.T. for 28, again, low income or S.W.A.T. for 37. And the city itself will be drafting and putting together an economic hardship city proposal for those who don't meet those other three categories. And we covered that extensively at our last committee hearing. So I understand and I hear the concerns of the people who have taken the time to come here today and to the past two committee meetings to voice their concerns. I provided for my colleagues a list of the most common concerns, and there were about nine of them and some additional information regarding those concerns. I do believe that this is the appropriate next step for council to take after about ten years of consideration on this project. So the Council first passed its first ordinance establishing the Waterfront Partnership Committee in 2009 and adopted its first resolution affirming the concept of a lid back in 2012. Again, in 2017, we passed a resolution affirming that we would consider the lid as part of the funding of the waterfront improvement plan. Again, this resolution does not form the lid and is consistent with the steps we have taken to evaluate the funding and execution of the waterfront redevelopment, a project that will total just under $4 billion when completed. I think it's important to keep in mind, and I want to apologize to those of you who felt that I was disrespectful and making it sound that you're commit or that you are, that the lid imposed on you was such a small part or would not impact your lives. This is a project that has five major components that adds up to $4.7 billion. The waterfront, as you know, is one of those five projects. The waterfront project on its own, separate from the within. I'm sorry, the 4.7 billion comes out to around 700 million. So we know that 400 million comes from public funding. That public funding would be 193 million from the state of Washington and 195 million from the city of Seattle and which all taxpayers will pay into. Then there's the 200 million for the lid, and then, of course, the 100 million from the Friends of the Waterfront, which I understand have raised up to 23 million, 24 million, 28 million as of today's date, which is around 700 million. So in those other four projects, that's the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement, the Coleman Dock rebuilt Elliott Bay Seawall, utility infrastructure and of course, the waterfront park. I just want to share that we had gone through some of the concerns, enlisted them that you brought to our attention in the notes that we took in putting that together, whether or not addressing the constitutionality, addressing cost overruns, the cap at 200 million that alleged can be used to fund parks as well as other infrastructure that the community engagement. My understanding is that this project has been around since well started over. Well, 211 to 218 was a community outreach piece. And then we have the project starting around 209 I'm sorry, 2009 to 2018. That's up to today's date. So there were some concerns that Washington state does not allow for council to enact resolution or by ordinance lids. That is not true. This is a list of recent examples of the lid the Seattle City Council formed by resolution an ordinance that would be the South Lake Union streetcar, Portage Bay Place, Third Avenue Transit Tunnel, Delbridge Alley , and 35th Avenue South. Those are just five of seven projects that the city has been doing since 1910. Again, I'm not trying to diminish the project and the impact it will have on your life and your livelihood. But simply trying to put it into context, the bigger picture that it isn't just a lid being proposed for a park. It is part of a larger, much larger picture. So with that, I believe Councilmember Johnson had a few comments to make as well concerning Johnson.
Speaker 8: If I may. Thanks. Councilmember was took a lot of the things that I wanted to say about the tax element of all of this, but I wanted to refer, if I may, council president to a note that I got from a downtown resident who I thought had a really good perspective on this. And he said, You've probably heard from many of my neighbors on this issue, and I find their concerns thoughtful and worth considering. However, I do think it's fair to assume that those living downtown incur a disproportionate benefit from the waterfront improvements. And I do think this project is likely to be an important and valuable addition to both our city and the surrounding neighborhoods property values. And the idea seems like a fair mechanism for an important project. I think we've demonstrated a willingness to really work with folks. Given the 20 year potential payback period associated with this. I think that the property assessments that I've seen so far have been a fair assessment, especially considering that many of the places that I've seen are valued have seen double digit assessment increases in the last 30 to 60 days alone. I've seen properties downtown that have improved in value between 20 and $40,000 just in the last couple of months. And so for an average assessment of our median assessment of 20 $400, and for those that I know are going to be paying larger assessments, I think it's a fair approach. I do think that there are places where we will be meeting people where they are in terms of. The ability for low income folks and for seniors to get deferments from those investments. And frankly, I think that the benefits for this project will be seen citywide, which is why we've asked the broader city city residents to pay $200 million towards this project and the state residents to another to $200 million. So for me, I think this is a fair and equitable process, and I'm looking forward to seeing the hearings, examiners outcomes and conclusions, and we'll be happy to vote yes today.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: QUESTION If I can just wrap it up. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Yes, please.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to, but I know I said I just want to say make sure it's clear that we do have deferral programs in place. And we do we are addressing displacement issues, low income seniors, retirees, nonprofit organizations, and then, of course, a 20 year deferral period in which to pay that. And with that, the committee recommends passage of the resolution.
Speaker 0: You're like a council member. Beckstrom.
Speaker 1: So this may sound very odd, but I have been informed by our ethics office that I.
Speaker 3: Have to recuse myself today.
Speaker 1: From voting on this because the law doesn't go into effect for 30 days following the signing by the mayor.
Speaker 3: So it does not apply to this vote today.
Speaker 1: For those of you who.
Speaker 3: Have called my office and would like to meet with me over the next 30 days, I have been advised to ask my colleagues, council members Suarez, Gonzales and Councilmember Mosquito.
Speaker 1: These two at.
Speaker 3: Large to help with any specific questions. But 30 days from today, I.
Speaker 2: Will be.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 3: And I've been asked to come to various condo associations. I'll be happy to do that, meet with you and talk about your issues. I apologize that this has been so long. Believe me, the frustration is shared.
Speaker 1: Widely by me. But nonetheless.
Speaker 3: I just want to make sure that I'm not finding myself in a situation where I am accused of.
Speaker 1: Not having made everything as.
Speaker 3: Clear and transparent and on the record as I possibly can. So I'll be recusing myself for today, but count on me in 30 days to be diving back in.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herbold.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just want to speak to the process that Councilmember Juarez has been leading as it relates to the exemptions and deferrals piece. I understand that there is an additional option that is still in development focused on social service providers that forfeit their development rights in exchange for city covering their assessment. Specifically, in those instances when they forfeit their development rights, meaning they don't get the benefit of the improvement. I'd be interested to look further into this after today's vote to see whether or not this is an additional option that is exclusively for social service providers or whether or not we could also consider it for arts organizations or other civic organizations that agree to forfeit their development rights. I also want to speak a little bit to some of the concerns I had, realizing that a lot of these projects were transportation in nature because the SDR has had difficulty that has recently come to light maintaining their schedule and cost estimate estimates for many of their their projects. So there's a lot of catchup that it's going to have to do. So I had some pause when considering this legislation, but I understand from the Office of the Waterfront that they are managing there that not only are they the managing department, but that they are really the ones that are at each design milestone 10%, 30% , 60%, 90%, and 100% design developing the costs with an integrated team, including the design and engineering consultants. And then further, when it comes to to administering the program and having oversight of the construction, that that's going to be led by by that office, not by by our staff. It's less of a of a concern about the the abilities of ESTA in a vacuum, but more about compounded complex capital projects that one department might have responsibility for. So I feel like those concerns have been addressed.
Speaker 3: Council President Mayor, if I may respond briefly.
Speaker 0: Yes, you may. Some of us may want to say something as well. You keep trying to enter the mix. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for her. The point that she made and that actually came up in committee about the reporting. And from Office of the Waterfront Quarterly, I want to thank Marshall and his team. They have been great about checking in. Well, before I think we passed an ordinance last during budget about capital projects in checking in that the office of the waterfront has since I've been sharing this committee for two years have has always done that. Whether they're 10% design or 20% design. So the oversight piece is very important. I want to thank Councilmember Herbold for raising that question and also focusing in on that fourth option that we eventually are going to propose. In fact, when we look at nonprofits and we look at social services and who is deferred from that on, who is exempt from that, if you will . So thank you, Councilmember Herbold. And with that, I'll let you speak. Councilmember President.
Speaker 0: Well, the first thing I would like to say is I want to thank you for your leadership on stewarding us through this. And supporting the resolution is consistent with my legislative record of actually supporting, I think, legislation and policies that really go to what I see as a legacy project for this city. But I have to admit that the testimony we heard this afternoon on people who are impacted and people who are don't believe their the evaluation really is in sync with what they will pay is very impactful. And it is almost ironic that you are arguing in some the same kind of argument that these fine employees are arguing that as the city is, whether it's fiscal mismanagement or. Or an investment strategy that can be improved drastically. We are not listening to the needs of those on either fixed income or those who just can't afford to live in the city. And so that so those arguments don't fall on deaf ears by any stretch of the imagination. So I am confident that this is the beginning of a process to understand those concerns. And your your advocacy is appreciated. Again, you know, I'm. I don't say things they don't mean. And so when I say that, we will continue to see this process out and hear your concerns. We will do that. And so again, thank you, Councilmember, whereas for taking on once again controversial types of projects and listening and getting us through it and doing your homework as you do very well. So I want to thank you for that. So, okay, so if we're ready to I see people grabbing mikes. Councilmember skater, would you like to say a few words and then Councilmember Short.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank the chair for her good work to shepherd the last few conversations through and again echo with Council President Harold just mentioned that this seems to be the beginning of a process that has already been going on for about two years, three, ten years. A reminder to some of the folks who have been raising concerns and we talked about this a little bit at the last committee meeting that this many of the comments are directed at this council. But if we look over the last ten year period, it's the multiple mayors that initially initiated six mayors that initiated this process. So, well, many questions have been raised about fiscal management and this council. And I believe the departments are working very hard to show how effective some of these dollars have been in both putting public dollars to good public use and being effective stewards of those public dollars. I think that it's a good reminder to to reflect back on this process being a ten year process with six mayors at the helm, not this council specifically. I am, however, concerned, as I hear some of the testimony as well, about the direct impact on some folks who are living in the district or in the area. And part of what I was interested in knowing more about is what alternative funding sources have been looked at. As I understand it, given that I'm the newest to this conversation. In reading the materials that have been presented to us. It looks that commercial properties are absorbing over 87.4% of the litter assessment, leaving the remaining 12% to be absorbed by the residential condo owners in the area. I think that's an important number to continue to reflect on as we know that the improvements in the waterfront corridor will have a direct financial benefit to the business owners down there. And I think that it is right that they absorb the vast majority of this cost. I also am concerned, though, as I hear about what the total assessment could be on some of the homeowners or condo owners in the area. So I asked for a breakdown of what it would be for the one time assessment, the median one time assessment of 20 $400 a year, which could be paid over 20 years, breaks down to about $119 per year or just under $10 a month. So these are some of these statistics that I think are important to get out there. And I think when we have conversations over the next six week having a better assessment from individuals in the area of what the actual impact will be will be very helpful. I look at the department to help us get a better understanding of those dollars and cents numbers so that we can have a true conversation with the community as this rolls out. Again, recognizing that this is just the beginning of a process, just the beginning of the end of a long process. We also know that this is not the only funding source for this important, I would say, gateway to our city effort. We know that there has been significant investments put from all taxpayers throughout the city with a massive bond effort for this seawall replacement. We know that every taxpayer in the city also helped with the redevelopment of the deep bore tunnel and relied primarily on gas and other taxes paid by everyone in the city and the region. We also know that there are essentially billions of dollars in the waterfront transformation paid by taxes to all spread across all community members in the city of Seattle. But yet we still need this last leg to be funded. And I think that the proposal that has been transmitted to us from the mayor, again, transmitted to us from the mayor with about 88% of the total lead assessment coming from commercial properties, absorbing the lit assessment seems to me a reasonable formula for consideration, and I look forward to engaging to the extent we can until July 12th and then hearing what the recommendations are. So I will be voting yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper ROSQUETA, because we want.
Speaker 2: To thank you, Broken Arrow. A downtown lit is mathematically an overwhelmingly progressive source of funding for the waterfront park because the overwhelming majority of the expensive downtown property is owned by large businesses, hotels and real estate speculators. These are also the same entities that will most benefit financially from the waterfront park. In fact, it needs to be registered. I think that this is in contrast to the usual process between the tunnel, all the utilities that are about to be moved to sea wall, the people, the other public moneys going to the waterfront park. I think regular working class and middle class people across the city have already been asked to pay to. Much for the expensive costs of the downtown project. The bills so dramatically increase the property values of those wealthy owners of downtown real estate. However, I also think that it is inevitable that there are some working class and middle class homeowners, especially older, older community members who bought who may have bought a condo in Pioneer Square or Bow Down decades ago, and who are not the primary beneficiaries of the waterfront park and are like other working people already overburdened by property taxes. And I think their concerns should be taken seriously. There is one mitigating opportunity that some of us may not know about. In King County, low income seniors have again be exempted from all property taxes. And if we know of seniors who are on fixed income, who are in the area, then you are probably eligible for this tax exemption. Please contact my office if you would like us to help you in applying for it. I understand that this will not obviously not understand. I'm sorry. Answer everyone's concerns. So I look forward to hearing from all of you over the next weeks and months as the process unfolds. As has been mentioned before. Today's vote only starts that process because the majority of the taxes would be levied on the wealthy property owners. Down, down. I will be voting yes on this resolution and I look forward to talking with you all about how to mitigate the impact on working class and middle class people who are caught in the lead area.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Swann. Any further comments? Okay, we're going to vote, so please call the roll on this resolution.
Speaker 1: So on I. Gonzales I herbold II. JOHNSON Whereas I was together, I. O'BRIEN All right. President Harrell high Aden favor and unopposed councilmember based on attendance and disqualified from voting.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Please read items six and seven.
A RESOLUTION declaring the intention of the City Council of The City of Seattle to order the construction of the Seattle Central Waterfront Improvement Program, and to create a local improvement district to assess a part of the cost and expense of both carrying out certain of those improvements against the properties specially benefited thereby; notifying all persons who desire to object to such improvements to appear and present their objections; and establishing July 13, 2018, as the date the Council’s consideration of the Waterfront Local Improvement District becomes a pending quasi-judicial proceeding.