Attachment Exhibit A for Regular Meeting held Feb 28, 2012 1:00PM at SEA

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 ZOF 32E?!
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 - 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

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.