Exhibit A
Exhibit A Port Commission Regular Meeting of February 28, 2012 9688 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 981 18-5981 February 23, 2012 Mr. Tay Yoshitani, CEO Mr. Dan Thomas, Chief Financial & Administrative Ofcer Mr. Bill Bryant, Chairman & President, Seattle Port Commission Mr. Rob Holland, Vice President, Seattle Port Commission Mr. John Creighton, Secretary, Seattle Port Commission Mr. Tom Albro, Assistant Secretary, Seattle Port Commission Ms. Gail Tarleton, Seattle Port Commissioner Port of Seattle P. O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 981 1 1 DRAFT FOR REVIEW Re: Washington State Auditor's Findings I. Lack of Authority to Finance - Highline School District's Aviation High School ll. Lack of Data to Support the $300,000,000 Participation in the SR 99 Project per Memorandum of Agreement with WSDOT Dear Port Administrators and Commissioners: The Ofce of the State Auditor has advised me by letter dated February 13, 2012 that there are two major concerns that, to me, imply an appalling lack of due diligence on your part and, in the case of the illegal nancing of the above referenced Aviation High School, where the Port has already expended some $13.6 million, what must surely be both malfeasance and misfeasance on your collective part. From your published budget, at page lX-l Item A, Tax at a Glance, for the 2012 levy , you show at the 6th bullet, "Highline School District, Aviation High School. However, the auditor has noted in the referenced letter of the 13th instant ". .. that the Port did not have the authority to provide $15 million for the construction and operation of Aviation High School." The auditor then notes, "The Port has contributed approximately $13.6 million to fund Aviation High School ..." Since this is not a legal undertaking, 1 am asking that you immediately request the King County Assessor remove this item from the 2012 Port levy and, in addition, take whatever action is required to obtain a full refund from the Highline School District. A blunder of this magnitude cannot be left to stand, 1 am sure you will agree. Port of Seattle Administration & Commissioners February 23, 2012 Page 2 To me, it is inconceivable that the Port, in exercising its taxing authority over all of King County, is fundamentally asking, for example, that some property owner in Fall City in the Snoqualmie Valley School District, pay for a new high school in the Highline School District far on the other side ofthe county. In this illustrative case is this not a violation ofyour duciary duty to the public? As a consequence, it is appropriate for you to right this wrong and obtain a refund for these misappropriated and misspent funds. When can I expect this task to be accomplished? When will you demand a refund from the Highline School District whom I suspect likely schemed with you to promote this scam? For now, the Port's coffers need to be reimbursed by $13.6 million the taxpayers in King County reimbursed and, in turn, for your mistake with a property tax credit. The second item arises from your Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with WSDOT all of you supported at that your public meeting with WSDOT representatives, Messrs. Ron Paananen and Ron Judd, held at the Port's main auditorium on February 9th, 2010. This MOA carries an up-front cost to the Port, and by extension, to every property owner in King County, of $300,000,000 (three hundred million). This sum does not include the time-value of money. If we take today's value of money, at the published rate from the municipal bond index of 4.58 percent, that sum for a 30-year bond is $1.15 billion. What do the property owners ofKing County receive for this billion-dollar gift to WSDOT and a few Seattle waterfront property owners, apart from a highway whose design abrogates no less than ve (5) highway safety design standards and will 70 megawatts of consume power per day at an annual cost exceeding $1.4 million? Unfortunately, and as you may now be aware, the state auditor could not nd any documentation describing what the $300,000,000 is for. He doesn't know; nor do you. You should know that I have been asking that same question of your liaison Ms. Charla Skaggs. For example, I asked her about this Port participation in person at the WSDOT corridor hearing of April 22nd, 2010, again by letter dated April 27'", 2010, and by dated May e-mails I 1th, May 18'", May 25'", and June 3rd, 2010. In the absence of any nancial or trafc data I then came to the conclusion that this billion-dollar "gift" to WSDOT is not fact-based. It is therefore no coincidence the state auditor has reached the same conclusion. No data of any kind exists in support ifthis surely arbitrary and impulsive amount, an amount nearly three times larger than your entire 2012 county tax levy. Now, on the positive side of the argument, at least as far as the Port the auditor has pointed may be concerned, out to me by letter of February 13th, 2012 that under RCW 53.08.330 the Port is authorized to contribute mds to highway and street projects. Port of Seattle Administration & Commissioners February 24, 2012 Page 4 According to the Port's budget (page lX-3) at Part C. Tax Lexy Uses, tax levy 'funds have been used for: "... certain regional transportation projects, including the Port's contribution to the SR 99 tunnel." I must ask, is this ajustiable excuse to tax the many for the benet of the very few? Consequently, from the above, we are faced with the disturbing fact that gl_l King County property owners are now nancing, through the tax levy, some very lucrative "special benets" (using the Allen-Brackett-Shedd term) to the tune of about half a billion dollars. These properties are owned by only afe_w downtown Seattle business interests. Does anyone of you consider this an equitable, fair, reasonable and just arrangement? Can you rationally explain why all King County property owners are being taxed to essentially nance enormous "special benets" for but a few downtown "central waterfront" Seattle property owners? As you may surmise, this comment applies to virtually all-860,000 plus King County households who, thanks to your judgment, based on nothing according to the State Auditor, are now burdened with this clearly unjust tax. To summarize the foregoing, there can be no rebuttal to the charge that the Seattle Port Commission has failed in its duty to diligently understand, review, question or' intelligently focus on this major nancial undertaking, an undertaking of dubious transportation benet, if indeed any benet exists at all. As a result, I am asking that you correct this mistake and put the Port on an acceptable course where the ordinary King County property owner's pocket book is not so ruthlessly pillaged for the benet of a small number ofwell-placed downtown Seattle property interests. I will attend your February 28th meeting at Sea-Tac airport at l :00 pm. and trust this substantial tax component will also be on your agenda. At this forthcoming Port Commission meeting, how are you going to rectify this enormously costly nancial obligation, if it is in fact a legitimate obligation, which was at last brought to light by the state auditor (and soon to be published at www.sao.wa.gov). Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your resolution. Sincerely, Christopher V. Brown, P.E. cc Ofce of the King County Assessor Reasons to Rescind the Memorandum of Agreement with WSDOT There are four main reasons to withdraw from the agreement with WSDOT. 1. The deep-bored tunnel promised to the legislature is not what is being built as of this time. It includes not less than 5 deviations from the current highway design standards. Attached are two drawings. One shows the design submitted to the legislature on which funding was approved. The other shows what is now being designed. Note the changes to the lane and shoulder widths and vertical clearances. More telling to the Port, grades cannot exceed 5% for more than 900 feet. NB it is 4,000 feet, SB it is 3,000 feet. 2. The tunnel does not provide for an escape route for the handicapped traveler in the lower, NB lanes. HC travelers are at great risk. Attached are drawings of the NB-SB stairs to the longitudinal escape corridor. Note this is not handicapped accessible. 3. The tunnel, with no routing to Magnolia, Inter-bay, and Lower Queen Anne, coupled to its tolling requirements, will induce an enormous shift of vehicular trafc onto the local roadway network along the waterfront. Excluding trafc diversion due to tolling, the shift to local streets from the SR 99 route will be at least 30,400 ADT according to 2015 forecasts. These enormous shifts remove any advantage to the Port. Clearly, the DBT OFFERS N0 ADVANTAGE T0 THE PORT: it is a large disadvantage. 4. An independent study, attached, performed for Seattle DOT, shows that the benets of the tunnel accrue to only a few property owners. The AllenBrackett-Shed appraisers show benets to only some 11,000 properties along the waterfront. These owners gain a benet of up to $600,000,000. Yet, the Port levy of $300,000,000 is to all of King County. There is no question these items show that the county property owner does not gain a single benet. Accordingly, you must rescind this agreement. Seattle Times publication of the conceptual design of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Excludes tunnel wall protection e.g. Jersey Style Barriers. events. Excludes emergency escape routes in the event of re or catastrophic Excludes ADA capable pedestrian escape routes on lower NB roadway. Presumes trafc operations are less problematic than the rebuilt Hood Canal Bridge. m5 30501.; m1... >.l 226:" NE $420 .rCl 02 >I mzozmsa ZOF32E?! Illll . "83E. 28500 >ozmoxm=m "09.5.8 (an) suacnnous as SR 99 Tunnel Interior Visual Design Guidelines: Revised Final - May, 20.10 Tunnel Interior Railing Objectives: Provide safe, code-compliant rail elements Reduce maintenance and fabrication costs with simple, limited range of sub-elements Serve widest range of users by incorporating ADA standards where reasonable Coordinated, aesthetically acceptable visual appearance from one rail type to the next Hinge on rail segment For all gates In corridors facing egress route lines lines center center TYP Railings in Egress Corridor rail 8 rail 4' Between Between Latch on rail segment urwll Condition 1- Gate Condition 2 - Guard rail 34" to 38" 12" min. Hold uniform Self-supporting edge rail at all stairs w/ 11" min. one open side. At 88"wide stairs at ends of egress corridors - center handrail similar but w/o Intermediate rails. Handrail at 34" to 38" uniform height. Intermediate ralIs at 4" Condition 3 - Hand rail Condition 4 ' Handrail + Guardrail vertical center to center. Parsons Brinckerhoff 8 g "cling G'ntral Waterfront, Seawall, ye Streetcar and Mercer West Location Near Seattle Central waterfront From King Street to Mercer/Roy Streets Seattle, Washington Date of Report June 1, 2010 Date ofAnalysis June 1, 2010 QQILSu_lta_nt. Deborah A. Foreman, Senior Associate Matthew C. Sloan, Senior Associate Allen Brackett Shedd DRAFT 2010- 70d/ - Copyright 0 2010 Allen - Bracket! - Slzedtl Real Estate .I'lppmixers and Consultants S. Murray Bracken, MAI, Principal . Darin A. Shedd, IMAI, Principal Michael Murray, MAI, CCIM Greg Goodman, MAI Deborah Foreman Robert Chamberlin Matt Sloan David Coleman Jessica Stokesberry Chris McGarvey Diane Quinn Heidi Klansnic June 1, 2010 Bob Chandler, Project Manager Seattle Department of Transportation City.of Seattle PO. Box 34996 Seattle, WA 98124-4996 RE: PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ANALYS'I "$291? SiiECIAL BENEFITS FOR VARIOUS PROGRAMLEMENTS OF THE - KANWAY VIADUCT AND .. SEAWALL REPLA - -. 1;, PROG LINCgLUDING CENTRAL WATERFRONT, SEAW, . ' WEST, NEAR SEATTLE Dear Mr. Chandler . As requested, d a Pr 'i'iary ,3 Feasibility Analysis of Special Benefits/ Consulting- tli ious program elements of the Alaskan ~ Program (AWVSR), including Central . car and Mercer West ("Project"), near the eattle, King County, Washington. The purpose of ' ""'Vof Seattle in decision making regarding the ' mprovement District (LID) or multiple LIDs, in etailed Preliminary Special Benefits Study for LID The intend: ser of t '5 analysis is the City of Seattle. Due to the brief timeframe and prelimi pat " of this analysis, our expectation is a reader of this report _. should be kn ,g'eable of the project, surrounding commercial, multifamily, residential, and dustrial real estate markets, and LID matters. .. For this preliminary feasibility analysis, we identified about 11,000 properties in a study area proximate to'the project, including over 9,000 residential condominiums. Summaries of our analysis and conclusions are presented in several charts and analysis maps Within this report. This report addresses our understanding: 1) of the project(s) based on a summary review of project documents and mapping; 2) our scope and methodology for the preliminary feasibility analysis of special benefits; 3) preliminary analysis conclusions and reliability; and 4) anticipated LID challenges. 12320 NE 8"I Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone (425) 450-4040 Fax (425) 688-1819 419 Berkeley Avenue, Suite A Fircrest, WA 98466 Phone (253) 274-0099 Fax (253) 564-9442 Our analysis supports the following range of potential special benefits resulting from the "Project" as of June 1, 2010: Low: $395,000,000 Mid: - $810,000,000 High: $1,495,000,000 In our opinion, the most probable range of total potential spa-'al benets for the project is: "$1." PROBABLE RANGE: $675,000,000 TO $91 - Central Waterfront Seawall 1st Avenue Streetcar: Mercer West Practicee Professional Appraisal standards of the entity requesting 'f! needs of the client and for the inte13,, any of the sum available to col-2g' ' Matthew C. 810 'ieiiior Associate tbm Enclosures Allen Bracket! Shedd 201070DF'.DOC ~ Copyright 0 2010
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.