AN ORDINANCE related to surplus county real property; and amending Ordinance 12045, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.56.070 and Ordinance 12045, Section 14, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.56.150.
That brings us to the final item on today's agenda, an ordinance that would amend regulations relating to the dispensation of land or unused county owned property and require a creation of a publicly accessible database of these properties. Randy Vina from Council South will provide a staff report. Melvina, the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. My internet connection is a little bit squirrely this morning, so I am afraid to use video and audio at the same time, so I will not have my video app. For the record, Randy may not have council central staff. The materials for this item both began on page 33 of your packet. As Mr. Chair just said, the proposed ordinance would make changes to King County Code related to a publicly accessible database for and the disposition of vacant or unused county owned real property. As background, King County Code establishes requirements and guidelines for the disposition of county owned, real and personal property. The requirements include inventory, documentation and procedures related to the disposition and sale of surplus property. Code requires the facilities management to the division to maintain and update the current inventory of all county title real property along with detailed information as to which county department or agency is and is the department or custodian of that property. These requirements apply to surplus property. However, there is no requirement that the inventory be made available to the public. County code further requires that each departmental custodian submit a report to the Facilities Management Division no later than April 1st of each calendar year that describes the status of all real property under the department's custodianship. The report must document any changes in use or status of the real property and justify the retention and continued custodianship of the property. In declaring real county owned real property surplus. There are a series of steps that must be taken before the Facilities Management Division can make that declaration. First, a department or custodian must justify its retention of the real property. It cannot do so. Or if the custodian determines that it no longer needs the property. The Facilities Management Division must determine whether another county department or agency has a need for the property to provide to provide essential government services. Second, if the property is not needed for essential government services, the division must then determine if the passable parcel is suitable for affordable housing. If it's not deemed suitable for affordable housing, then the division must determine whether any other department or agency has any other need for the property. Finally, if no other department or agents who can demonstrate a need for the property, the division can declare the property surplus. Code provides for different uses of county owned real property that has been declared surplus as an example. Code does require that the Facilities Management Division recommend to the executive uses for county owned surplus property that includes uses by nonprofits for public purposes. And also of note county code does accept the sale at fair market value of surplus property that will be donated or sold to a bona fide nonprofit organization that provides services to the poor and infirm. The proposed ordinance would require that the Facilities Management Division conducts a surplus. Property analysis on any county owned real property that has not been leased occupied are used for a period of two consecutive years or longer. It would also require that the division establish a publicly accessible database of surplus real property owned by the county. There are a few things that the ordinance does with relation to reporting requirements, time considerations and the surplus property database. On page 35, again information about all of those different things. And I'll start with the reporting requirements. As I mentioned earlier, King County Code does require all departmental custodians to submit a report to the Facilities Management Division no later than April 1st of each calendar year. And that report describes all of the real property under the department's custodianship. It's supposed to document any changes in the use or status of the real property, and it should justify the retention and continued custodianship of the property. According to Facilities Management Division staff. Not all departmental custodians comply with the current provision requiring this amount of the report, and so the proposed ordinance would therefore add a requirement that the division maintain and update a list of the department, all custodians that have not submitted the required report. Under time considerations, according to FMD staff, until a departmental custodian has declared to FMD that it no longer needs the property. The property is not under control of FMD and they cannot unilaterally, unilaterally decide that a custodian is no longer using our needs property. This sometimes results in property sitting vacant or unused for long periods of time because departmental custodians have indicated that they no longer need them. The proposed ordinance would therefore give the Facilities Management Division the ability to conduct a survey plus property analysis that is set forth in county code where a county owed real personal county or real property has been vacant or unused for two consecutive years or longer. Additionally, departmental custodians do have control over leasing decisions of property that is under their custodianship. So the proposed ordinance would require departmental custodians to work in conjunction with the Facilities Management Division and other county agencies or departments to determine whether a property or portion of a property can be leased to a bona fide nonprofit organization that provides services to benefit the public. And this provision would be required where the custodian has not made use of or occupied a property for a period of two consecutive years or longer. Finally, with regards to the surplus property database, the proposed ordinance would require the Facilities Management Division to create and maintain a publicly accessible database of all county and real property that has been declared surplus. And it must include details such as the address dimensions and zoning restrictions for the parcel. That concludes my remarks on this proposed ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any questions. We also do have Anthony Wright, the director of the Facilities Management Division, here to answer any questions. Thank you. Council members a hello. This is your audience. Did you want to offer opening comments? Sure. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Really excited to increase Tony Wright's empire. No, I'm kidding. I just wanted to throw a little joke out there and make him uncomfortable. I'm excited to put forward the Surplus Land and Buildings ordinance today and get the feedback of my colleagues. As we've all been seeing, demand for safe indoor spaces has never been higher in our region. Not only have gentrification and displacement been making it harder for people to stay indoors, but so many pressures are making it harder to even be outdoors. Temperatures outside are either scorching or freezing. There's smoke clogging our air. The pandemic has come roaring back, gun violence is spiking and so on and so forth. So all these issues tell me we can leave no stone unturned to increase indoor options for the public. If King County owns buildings or land that isn't using for long periods, we should make those spaces available to our communities. Organizations could then use those spaces for housing, health clinics, office space, after school activities, and I'm sure all of my colleagues can vouch for this. But every week I hear from organizations that want to serve their communities and really important ways, but they don't have the physical space to do so in a region that pushes so many people out. I would say that's the thing that I hear from my constituents about the most. We want a physical space to either do our work, provide housing, provide care for our communities, but we just don't have the space to exist anymore in this region. So my legislation would require King County to conduct a surplus property analysis on county owned real property that it hasn't been using for long periods, at least two years . And then it would establish a publicly accessible database of surplus property owned by our county so that communities or organizations could check to see what's available. I hope this ordinance plays a part in getting people indoors and using our existing resources more effectively. And I look forward to hearing thoughts, concerns and ways to improve the legislation for all of my colleagues. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Question comments. Questions from colleagues. Councilmember Banducci. Yeah. I want to first say thank you to Councilman Rizal. I have for thinking about ways that we can continue to use the resources that we have to support this really important work. We know that we have a housing. We had a real housing challenge prior to COVID, and it's only gotten more challenging since then. So I think that knowing what tools we have in the toolbox and being transparent about that and, you know, holding up to the light, anything that we might be able to do is a really valuable exercise. And so I just wanted to say that up front, there are definitely reasons why the county might want to retain property that it is not currently using. And but I think that having a full inventory of what our properties are and which ones we're holding on to for reasons and what those reasons are would be a very valuable thing to do. Just to give an example, and this is a hypothetical that I'm actually generalizing from a city that I know you can hold on to surplus property sometimes for a very long time because you think, for example, that you may need to expand your solid waste capacity or your wastewater capacity and you're holding onto property because you think you might put a facility there someday. And it's you know, it saves you a great deal of cost when you need to do that. And those are also really important priorities for the county. So I wouldn't want us to rush headlong into let's get rid of all our property. But this is I understand it is a let's understand what all our property is, where it is. Make sure that is public and that we are being intentional about when we're hanging onto property for important reasons and thinking about how we can use the property we really, truly. Don't need. More quickly and more effectively. So if I understand that correctly, I think this is a really good a really good proposal, definitely in line with other policies that the council has pursued over the last several years. But I would love to hear what Mr. Wright has to say about the expansion of his empire that would be of interest to me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Empire Commander. Right. You're on mute. Yes. And I'm I'm following our inside county buildings policy with the mask. So you can't see me smiling and laughing at the comment. So I. But that's good. I, I, I think this is a this is just clarify something. I think the ASP, especially the aspect of the database, I think the database to track all of this because of the history of the county and how it was formed in the merger with Metro and stuff. There's a lot of complexities to the property. We have portions of the the county that can acquire property but can't dispose of it. So having a consolidated means for us to track these and fine tuning the reporting system which we already have underway, I think is going to be really, really helpful. The the evaluation of need, I think, is is an important aspect. And leaving that discretion for facilities that we that may be needed five or six years in the future because they have a clear plan that's moving towards that. But but identifying that means you have five or six years where that that facility might be usable. Being able to capture those particular elements, I think is going to be very useful. I look forward to asking for more money in order to do this database and expand my empire. But no, I think we support this supports legislation. And. The Security Council members. Hello. Thank you. Thank you so much for that, Tony. And I also wanted to just build on what Councilmember Baldacci was mentioning, even if it's not to completely transfer or quote unquote, get rid of surplus land in in the period where we're not using it. The public could get great benefit from being able to use buildings or space in the interim. You know, five years is enough to provide, you know, a safe place for people to go for five years, for organizations to build out their capacity until they can find their own permanent location. Just being able to use these spaces more efficiently is something that I think is beyond valuable. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there further questions? Is there a desire to have the opportunity to take this up in committee in the future? Is there an interest in emotion today? I would like to move it today and most our colleagues want to discuss it more in committee. I would be happy to wait as well. People have more thoughts they want to work through. Councilmember Bell, DC, you're off mute. Are you telling me some? You want to be talk? I just will state my support for voting today if you need that. Thank you. Councilmember Ismail. I think you should make a motion and take your chances. So move. Mr. Chair, I would like to move the legislation. Thank you. Motion Councilmember Zelaya's moves. We give a to pass recommendation to ordinance 2021 to 57. Any further discussion? Madam Couric, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Biology Councilmember Dombrowski. Hi. Councilmember Dunn. No. Was a member Kowalski I council member Lambert. Coffman Lumber I council member of the call. I council member one night that. I found some members online. Hi. Mr. Chair. Hi. Mr. Chair. The vote is eight I's Council Member ten voting no. Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2021. 257 will advance that to full council on the regular calendar and in regular timeline. Madam Clerk, did we miss any votes today?