HomeMy WebLinkAbout42_Port_Attorney_Letter
PORT OF
w// v/7t2
i
PORT TOWIVSE]VD
P . O . B o x 1 1 8 0
Port Townsend, Washington 9g368-4624
Phone: (360) 385-0656 Moorage office: (360) 385-23s5 Fax: (360) 385-3988
June 14, 1996
e-mail: port@daka.com
Mr. Tim McMahan
City of Port Townsend Attorney
Port Townsend City Hall
540 W$er Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Draft Comprehensive plan
of the City of
port
Townsend
Dear Tim:
The Board of Commissioners of the Port of Port Townsend and myself have reviewed the
June 3, L996, Draft Comprehensive Plan proposed by the Planning Commission. The plan
was discussed at the Commission meeting on June 12, and Commissioner Sokol will be
present at the June 19, hearing to address specific concerns the Commission has. While
some of these concerns are relatively minor, I take this oppornrnity to address one of the
major concerns.
As you probably know, the Port owns property adjacent to the Kah Tai Lagoon across Sims
Way from the Boat Haven. Roughly, the Port owns property from Washington Mutgal Bank
up to Henry's Hardware, bordered on Sims Way.
In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, the Draft designates that property as
'plOS
Existing oark
and open space"- Existing park and open space land is defined "t on pug, V-20 as follows:
*...Existing
City,.County and State owned parks and recreation areas, and City
owned lands which provide valuable natural and open space functions'.
The property the Port owns would not fall within thar definition.
,As
you know the port
is
mandated by statute to encourage economic growth, and while the
port
has no specific
immediate plan for that property, the property would make an excellent area for future retail
businesses' light inanufacturing, boat storage, or other uses that are not dedicated to parks
and recreation.
!/
Mr. Tim Mahan
June 14, 1996
Page 2
The concern has been raised by the Commission that, should the City adopt the Draft
Comprehensive Plan as proposed, and thus designate Port owned property as
'existing
park
and open space' the City would be in effect taking Port property without compensation. I
am sure you are more familiar with that issue more than I and I do not intend on researching
the area at this time. It does appear that if the City designated Port property as
'existing
parks and open space' that option would certainly preclude the Port from following its
legislative mandate to foster economic growth through the use of that real property. The
Poit requests ihat'yuu deloie the Port owned properr) from any ciesignation:as.*existing park
and open spacez, or
'petential
park and open space property.'
An additional collateral concern has been brought to my attention through litigation between
the Port and Jefferson County Fire District No. 6. I call your asention to RCW 43.W.2I0.
That statute in part states that all
'...property
transferred from one [municipal corporation !o
anotherl ...shall be paid for at its full and true value...' The statute apparently does apply to
ftansactions beween municipal corporations. The State of washington Gra]'s Harbor
County, 48 Wn.2d 606, 656, P.2d 1084 (1983)
The Port leased the property at issue to the City for $1.00. I believe the leases expire in
20L2. While the Port has not conducted, and does not intend to conduct an appraisal of the
prope4y, it is clear the property would have at a fair market rental value far in excess of
$1.00.
I would appreciate your thoughts particularly on the second issue. It seems !o me that given
the statute that if the City does want to continue to use the property, we are going to have to
at least adust the rent to reflect some reasonable value for the property. On the other hand if
the City does not want to use the property perhaps we should just formally terminate the
lease. I believe that this is the t-vpe of issue could lp passed !y the Stste Auditor, anC I do
not think either the Port or the City wants that.
Port Attorney
filer/!X/rb/cdbv6-14O