Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
11 Plaintiffs,
12 vs.
16 ANSWER
17
Defendant the City of Seattle (“City”), by way of answer to the Complaint for
18
Declaratory Relief and Damages (“Complaint”), filed by Plaintiffs 1 states and alleges as
19
follows:
20
21
1
22 The Plaintiffs are: Eugene A. Burrus and Leah S. Burrus; William J. Justen and Sandra
L. Justen; Theodore T Tanase and Priscilla B. Tanase; David Starr; Vasanth Philomin and
23 Karin Philomin; Daniel Tupper and Patricia Tupper; John Drinkard and Janet Drinkard;
Jane Finch; Frank Katz and Elise Katz; Deborah Bogin Cohen and Richard B. Osterberg;
24 John A. Bates and Carolyn Corvi; Harvey Allison and Mei Weng Allison; Victor C.
Moses and Mary K. Moses; Nancy E. Dorn and Carol A. Verga; Alexander W. Brindle
25 Sr.; Tom H. Peyree and Sally L. Peyree; Anton P. Gielen and Karen N. Gielen; Keith Paul
Klugman and Magderie Klugman; Andrew P. Marin and Cynthia J. Marin; and Daniel S.
3 (“Waterfront LID”) pursuant to Chapter 35.43 RCW, Seattle City Council (“City
4 Council”) Bills 119447, 119448, and 119449, and City Ordinances 125760, 125761, and
5 125762. The City also admits that it has issued a preliminary assessment roll and that the
6 City intends to issue a final assessment roll to assess properties within the Waterfront LID
7 which specially benefit from the Waterfront LID improvements, including assessments to
8 the Plaintiffs’ properties and other properties from T-Mobile Park to Denny Way and from
9 Elliott Bay to I-5, to collectively raise $160 million, exclusive of financing. The City
12 2.1 The City admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.1 of the Complaint with
13 respect to any claim encompassed in RCW 35.43.100. The City otherwise denies the
15 2.2 The City admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.2 of the Complaint.
16 III. Parties
17 3.1 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
18 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.1 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
19 same.
20 3.2 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
21 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.2 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
22 same.
23
24
25 Friedman and Myra A. Friedman; Holly Morris; Ronald Evan Wallace; and Christy
Kinnaird.
2 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.3 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
3 same.
4 3.4 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
5 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.4 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
6 same.
7 3.5 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
8 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.5 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
9 same.
10 3.6 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
11 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.6 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
12 same.
13 3.7 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
14 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.7 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
15 same.
16 3.8 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
17 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.8 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
18 same.
19 3.9 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
20 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.9 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
21 same.
22 3.10 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
23 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.10 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
24 same.
25
2 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.11 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
3 same.
4 3.12 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
5 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.12 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
6 same.
7 3.13 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
8 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.13 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
9 same.
10 3.14 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
11 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.14 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
12 same.
13 3.15 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
14 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.15 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
15 same.
16 3.16 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
17 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.16 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
18 same.
19 3.17 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
20 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.17 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
21 same.
22 3.18 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
23 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.18 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
24 same.
25
2 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.19 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
3 same.
4 3.20 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
5 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.20 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
6 same.
7 3.21 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
8 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.21 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
9 same.
10 3.22 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
11 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.22 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
12 same.
13 3.23 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
14 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.23 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
15 same.
16 3.24 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
17 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.24 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
18 same.
19 3.25 The City admits the allegation in Paragraph 3.25 of the Complaint.
20 3.26 Responding to Paragraph 3.26 of the Complaint, the City admits that it is
21 the employer of Mayor Jenny Durkan and City Council members Sally Bagshaw, Lorena
22 Gonzalez, Rob Johnson, Deborah Juarez, Teresa Mosqueda, Kshama Sawant, and Mike
23 O’Brien. The City denies any allegation of wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 3.26 of the
24 Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.26 of the
25 Complaint.
2 4.1 Responding to Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint, the City admits that on
3 August 13, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 31399 that included references to a
4 Central Waterfront Committee Strategic Plan, a Central Waterfront concept Design and
5 Framework Plan, and a Funding Plan for the Waterfront Improvement Program. The City
7 4.2 Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, which do not
8 require a response. To the extent a response is required, the City admits that Chapters
9 35.43 and 35.44 RCW, inter alia, describe the City’s authority to create local
10 improvement districts and certain requirements and procedures for same, the content of
11 which speaks for itself. To the extent that Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint alleges any
12 wrongdoing by the City, the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint.
13 4.3 Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, which do not
14 require a response. To the extent that Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint alleges any
15 wrongdoing by the City, the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint.
16 4.4 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.4 of the Complaint.
17 4.5 Responding to Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint, the City admits that it
18 passed Resolution 31812 in May 2018, the content of which speaks for itself. To the
19 extent that Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint alleges any wrongdoing by the City, the City
21 4.6 Responding to Paragraph 4.6 of the Complaint, the City admits that
22 Ordinance 125760 authorizes the City to assess up to $160 million dollars of special
23 benefit, exclusive of financing, against property owners in the Waterfront LID. The City
25 4.7 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.7 of the Complaint.
2 Waterfront LID area stretches roughly from T-Mobile Park to Denny Way and roughly
3 from Elliot Bay to I-5 and that some properties to be assessed are not immediately
4 adjacent to planned improvements. The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph
5 4.8 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.8 of
6 the Complaint.
7 4.9 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.9 of the Complaint.
8 4.10 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.10 of the Complaint.
9 4.11 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.11 of the Complaint.
10 4.12 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.12 of the Complaint.
11 4.13 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.13 of the Complaint.
12 4.14 Responding to Paragraph 4.14 of the Complaint, the City admits that it
13 released a preliminary special benefit study in or around May 2018 and mailed letters to
14 affected property owners in or around June 2018, the content of which study and letters
15 speaks for themselves, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.14 of the
16 Complaint.
17 4.15 Responding to Paragraph 4.15 of the Complaint, the City admits that, from
18 July 13, 2018 to July 31, 2018, the Seattle Hearing Examiner received public comment
19 and held hearings on the City’s intent to form the Waterfront LID. The City otherwise
21 4.15.1 The City admits that some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs submitted written
22 protests to the proposed Waterfront LID. The City otherwise denies any remaining
24 4.16 Responding to Paragraph 4.16 of the Complaint, the City admits that the
25 Hearing Examiner received approximately 333 comments on the Waterfront LID and that
2 content of which speaks for itself. The City denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph
4 4.17 Responding to Paragraph 4.17 of the Complaint, the City admits that the
7 consists of a legal conclusion which does not require a response. The City lacks
9 individual property owners and thus denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.17 of
10 the Complaint.
11 4.18 The City lacks information sufficient to confirm or deny the statement
12 attributed to Mayor Durkan in Paragraph 4.18 of the Complaint and denies it on this basis.
13 4.19 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.19 of the Complaint.
14 4.20 Responding to Paragraph 4.20, the City admits that it published a public
15 memorandum on or around January 25, 2019, the content of which speaks for itself. The
16 City denies wrongdoing and therefore denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.20
17 of the Complaint.
18 4.21 Responding to Paragraph 4.21 of the Complaint, the City admits that the
19 City Council passed, and Mayor Durkan signed, Ordinance 125760 on January 28, 2019,
20 the content of which speaks for itself. The City denies any remaining allegations in
22 4.22 The City admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.22 of the Complaint.
23 4.23 Paragraph 4.23 consists of legal conclusions that do not require a response.
24 To the extent a response is necessary, the City admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.23 of
25 the Complaint.
3 4.25 Responding to Paragraph 4.25 of the Complaint, the City admits that the
4 Waterfront LID was the first City LID formed under the City Council’s district
5 representative model. The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 4.25 of the
6 Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.25 of the
7 Complaint.
8 4.26 The City admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.26 of the Complaint.
9 4.27 Responding to Paragraph 4.27 of the Complaint, the City admits that
10 Seattle voters may vote for three members of the City Council, including two at-large
11 members and one specific geographic district member. The City denies any wrongdoing
12 alleged in Paragraph 4.27 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
14 4.28 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.28 of the Complaint.
16 To the extent a response is required, the City denies any wrongdoing alleged in paragraph
17 4.29 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.29 of the
18 Complaint.
19 4.30 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.30 of the Complaint.
20 4.31 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.31 of the Complaint.
21 4.32 Responding to Paragraph 4.32 of the Complaint, the City admits a meeting
22 of the Civic Development, Public Assets & Native Communities Committee was held on
23 May 2, 2018 and that the proposed Waterfront LID was on the agenda. The City denies
25
2 Councilwoman Deborah Juarez was at the May 2, 2018 meeting of the Civic
3 Development, Public Assets & Native Communities Committee. The City denies any
4 wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 4.33, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in
6 4.34 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.34 of the Complaint.
7 4.35 The City admits that some, but not all, Plaintiffs submitted formal protests
8 and comments about the Waterfront LID to the City. The City otherwise denies any
10 4.36 Responding to Paragraph 4.36 of the Complaint, the City lacks sufficient
13 4.37 Responding to Paragraph 4.37 of the Complaint, the City lacks sufficient
16 4.38 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.38 of the Complaint.
17 V. Causes of Action
18 5.1 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1 of the Complaint.
11 Complaint.
12 5.1.5 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.5 of the Complaint.
17 Complaint.
18 5.1.7 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.7 of the Complaint.
19 5.1.8 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.8 of the Complaint.
25 5.2 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.2 of the Complaint.
9 5.2.2 of the Complaint alleges any wrongdoing by the City, the City
11 5.2.3 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.2.3 of the Complaint.
12 5.2.4 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.2.4 of the Complaint.
13 5.2.5 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.2.5 of the Complaint.
14 5.2.6 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.2.6 of the Complaint.
19 the Complaint.
20 5.3 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.3 of the Complaint.
5 any wrongdoing by the City, the City denies Paragraph 5.3.2 of the
6 Complaint.
7 5.3.3 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.3.3 of the Complaint.
8 5.3.4 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.3.4 of the Complaint.
9 5.3.5 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.3.5 of the Complaint.
14 Complaint.
15 5.4 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.4 of the Complaint.
19 5.4.2 The City admits the allegation in Paragraph 5.4.2 of the Complaint.
20 5.4.3 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.4.3 of the Complaint.
21 5.4.4 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.4.4 of the Complaint.
23 Complaint.
25 Complaint.
2 Complaint.
4 Complaint.
6 Complaint.
8 Complaint.
10 Complaint.
12 Complaint.
13 5.4.5 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.4.5 of the
16 5.4.6 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.4.6 of the
19 5.4.7 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.4.7 of the
22 5.4.8 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.4.8 of the
25
7 Complaint.
9 Complaint.
11 Complaint.
12 5.5 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.5 of the Complaint.
16 5.5.2 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.5.2 of the
19 5.5.3 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.5.3 of the
22 5.5.4 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.5.4 of the
25
9 5.5.7 The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.5.7 of the
10 Complaint.
11 5.5.8 The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.5.8 of the
12 Complaint.
13 5.5.9 The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.5.9 of the
14 Complaint.
15 5.6 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.6 of the Complaint.
19 5.6.2 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.6.2 of the
22 5.6.3 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.6.3 of the
25
4 5.6.5 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.6.5 of the
12 5.6.7 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.6.7 of the Complaint.
13 5.6.8 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.6.8 of the Complaint.
14 5.6.9 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.6.9 of the Complaint.
15 5.7 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.7 of the Complaint.
19 5.7.2 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.7.2 of the
25 Complaint.
2 5.7.5 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.7.5 of the Complaint.
3 5.7.6 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.7.6 of the
6 5.7.7 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.7.7 of the
9 5.8 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.8 of the Complaint.
13 5.8.2 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.8.2 of the Complaint.
19 5.8.4 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.8.4 of the
22 5.8.5 To the extent Paragraph 5.8.5 of the Complaint references the City
25
3 5.8.6 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.8.6 of the Complaint.
4 5.9 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.9 of the Complaint.
8 5.9.2 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.9.2 of the
11 5.9.3 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.9.3 of the
14 5.9.4 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.9.4 of the
18 6.1 The City denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief request in
20 6.2 The City also denies each and every remaining allegation of the Complaint
23 By way of further answer and defense, the City asserts the following affirmative
25
2 be granted.
3 2. Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are premature, as the City has not finalized
5 3. This Court is the improper forum for some or all of Plaintiffs’ challenges to
6 the Waterfront LID, as Chapter 35.43 RCW provides for an objection process following
9 complete necessary preliminary steps required under Chapter 35.44 RCW prior to filing
14 7.24 RCW for some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs have failed to present a
15 justiciable controversy.
18 representative model.
20 Seattle’s City Council must be resolved through the political or legislative process, rather
24
25
2 time because the City has not finalized the assessment roll pursuant to Chapter 35.44
3 RCW.
6 12. The preliminary special assessments for the Waterfront LID were fairly
8 13. There has been no improper access to, or decisions by, City Hearing
9 Examiners Ryan P. Vancil and Barbara Dykes-Ehrlichman, or City Council members and
10 their staff.
11 14. The City’s district representative model and subsequent creation of the
12 Waterfront LID does not violate Article 1, Sections 1, 3, or 4 of the Washington State
13 Constitution.
19 c. Other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
20
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2019.
21
22
23
24
25
3 By s/Mark S. Filipini
Mark S Filipini, WSBA #32501
4 mark.filipini@klgates.com
s/Christina A. Elles
5 Christina A Elles, WSBA #51594
christina.elles@klgates.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant City of Seattle
7
8 PETER S. HOLMES
Seattle City Attorney
9
10
By s/Engel Lee
11 Engel Lee, WSBA #24448
engel.lee@seattle.gov
12 Assistant City Attorney
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13 s/ Anita Spencer
Anita Spencer, Sr. Practice Assistant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25