AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; declaring the City’s 8th and Roy Street property as surplus to the City’s needs and no longer required for providing public utility service or other municipal purpose; authorizing the sale of this property for fair market value through a brokered sale; authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the City Light Department to execute all necessary documents to accomplish such property sale; and authorizing the deposit of the proceeds of the sale in the City Light Fund and allocation of part of the proceeds to the Rate Stabilization Account.
Three part of the Energy Environment Committee agenda and five cancel 1190 34 relating to the City Light Department declaring the city's eighth and Roy Street property surplus. The city's needs are no longer required for providing public utility services or other municipal purposes. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmembers two one. And how this ordinance authorizes city life to sell a surplus property on eighth and Roy City lighthouses add the property appraised and expects to get well over $30 million for it because it's in Salt Lake Union in a prime location and part of the revenue from the sale will go to the rate stabilization action, which may be sufficient to remove the 1.5% rate. So, Judge, that Seattleites have been paying for the last year on their city led bills. The Energy and Environment Committee discussed the possible uses for the property. Ideally, Seattle uses publicly owned property to build affordable housing in the midst of this housing crisis. However, this property is owned by City Light, not the city of Seattle, which means that legally, if any department wants it, the city needs to base a delightful market value. The Office of Housing in the Parks Department came to the committee meeting and explained that paying that much for this particular property to use for affordable housing or for a park in that location is not the best use of their funds if they have to pay full market value anyway, they have other properties that are a higher priority to purchase for housing or parks. So, you know, City Light has been sitting on this property without using it for anything for the past seven years and has no plan to use it for anything in the future. So the Energy and Environment Committee unanimously recommends that council pass this bill. Just very good. Any questions concerning Gonzales? Oh, no questions. I was just gonna make a comment, please. Okay. So I just wanted to talk a little bit about sort of where we're at with these surplus properties. A I think to me it's a little it's, it's, it's frustrating that we can't have more flexibility as it relates to surplus property that is in an area like South Lake Union. But unfortunately it is pretty clear under state law that this is rate payer regulated and that that as a result of that we have to strictly comply with the laws imposed upon us by the state as it relates to how we can manage disposition of this particular property. Our Office of Housing came to a hearing to our committee last week and testified that they have looked at the opportunity of purchasing and acquiring this land for purposes of building affordable housing. Twice since 2009, I believe, was the date and still have come to the same conclusion that it's just cost prohibitive to acquire this particular parcel . And our Parks Department also reviewed the opportunity to purchase this and likewise determined that this was not a good opportunity for them, given the cost. And I just want to highlight that if you do a public records search, you'll see that the risk to the city of not strictly complying with the state laws that are applicable to these two ratepayer property is quite, quite serious. And in fact, the city of Seattle has historically been sued approximately four times as a result of trying to find nuances as it relates to how we can sell and or otherwise utilize repair owned property. So just wanted to buttress the points that were made by Councilmember Salant that we heard in committee last week. Very good cuts from Johnson. Just wanted to ask a question. You know, we've gotten several communications, both from members of the public who are here today, but then also representatives of both the South Lake Union, Chamber of Commerce and other folks representing South Lake Union. I'm wondering if in particular, one of those organizations asked if there was an opportunity for jurisdictional transfer or for co-development of the property with city and other development companies that would allow for Cee Lo to maintain ownership but also have some co-development relationship to where those issues are addressed at all in committee. Were they explored at all by satellite? Is there. Believe that has ever come up but. I got I. Without waiving attorney client privilege, I have seen a memo that discusses pretty heavy restrictions on those types of proposals. I want to be really clear that it is my understanding that the property itself can be used for anything that the community wants it to be used for, but they have to pay fair market value . So whatever the appraisal fair market value is, that's what has to be paid and it can be used for anything that the Chamber of Commerce dreams up of or otherwise for. I mean, the question is the cost. Yeah, the cost piece. I understand the underlying piece related to it. It just seems to me that in a city where we continue to grow, both in terms of staff and in terms of population, that, you know, opportunities for us to have any kind of public property that can be maintained in our control or have some sort of joint use opportunity to it. You know, in particular, this letter from the South Lake Union Chamber of Commerce talks about co-development relationships. And and notwithstanding the committee discussions that I you know, I had to. You the person who lobs in a lot of questions here in the final yards. But it just seems to me like this is a very large missed opportunity and I recognize the legal ramifications. And I don't want to get us in hot water with any folks at the city attorney's office, but just want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence about turning over every rock humanly possible about options that might have been available to us around not, not just owned it, continued ownership of the property for city life, but also that ownership that may allow for other uses to continue. It sounds as though that that's the case, but I just want to make sure we're we're doing everything we can. Councilmember Herbold, thank you. I just want to take this opportunity to note that the recommendation to prioritize city owned property for housing purposes was a was a hollow recommendation. And though we have significant limitations that relates to property that's owned by our public utilities, not just city life, but also as Pugh, we have increased our sale of city properties and use either use those properties themselves for housing or use the proceeds for housing. Just from 2015 to 2017, there have been 12 properties that have been either the properties themselves, they're going to be housing built on them or the proceeds from the sale. The property is going to be used for affordable housing. Just in the last few months we've taken action on 1415 Eastchester Way and 1429 South Jackson. And I think there's a there's a strong commitment to this principle. And I understand that when we talk about the disposition properties in Councilmember Burgess's committee, that we're going to talk about how to better make sure that our disposition process really prioritizes the use of these properties whenever possible for affordable housing. And our first discussion is Wednesday morning of that. That's great. Kathryn Bigelow. Thank you. Councilmember Burgess, are you talking about this particular property? And, you know. We're talking in general about the cities disposition, policy process we follow for disposition. If you just follow up quickly and this is Councilmember Solon, Councilmember Gonzales, that you worked on this. Is it possible for us to extend the period of time councilmembers want? Is it possible for us to extend the period of time as Seattle City Life is putting this out to the public? Can we ask them to continue to explore alternatives, whether it's co-development or something, to allow this to happen? I mean, if the majority of the council want to do that, you can do that. But in my view, City Light has explored every possible option. And I thought Councilmember Gonzalez gave a good description from the legal standpoint, the severe restrictions they face. So my honest opinion would be you can hold it, but you want to have a different outcome. And we'll probably come back to the same point. I, I would concur with that opinion, an assessment that was just provided by council members to want. And I also want to be very clear that any further delay of action on this particular council bill will result in an impact to an ongoing impact to our ratepayers disposition of this property. At this juncture, given that the $33 million appraisal that we have will enable the utility to be able to remove the 1.5% surcharge that is currently being experienced by our city white ratepayers. And that's that's pretty significant. And I would urge us to not delay any further, particularly given since this has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed since since 2009, based on the presentation provided to us by the departments. Okay. I think that's time for a vote, Councilman, which is. Just as the Chair of Parks and being the vice chair with council members who want I mean, the history here, we've had it in committee twice and it was Department of Parks are Seattle City Light transported Department of parks in 92 and then then it killed Parks transferred it back to Sea Light in 2003. And I want to follow up on what Councilmember Gonzalez said about the delay in the cost in the money, and that the money would be going back and correct me if I'm wrong. CUSTOMER So why don't we go back to the rent stabilization rate I'm sorry, rate stabilization account. But the other concern is, and we've we've been to committee hearings where we have heard from Department of Parks and Rec that they do not want this property. We heard from Office of Housing that they do not want this property. It's pretty, pretty vetted, pretty clear. And also going back on what Councilmember Gonzalez said without on the legal opinion and the justification, it's it's just it's just time. So we need to do it. Okay. Let's, let's please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Johnson I. Suarez Yeah. So what I think John Burgess Gonzalez proposed president Harrell eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair of the Senate please read the report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee.