Trails deal has no footing

By Christopher Cain

“The purchase of this rail line, and related transactions, is already slated to be included in the scope of our next scheduled audit work, that being roughly this coming July. We have already begun preliminary inquiries to determine the legality of this transaction. We anticipate releasing our report on the Port’s accountability for the period 2006-2007 sometime next fall.” Washington State Auditors Office Nov. 26, 2007

The Port of Seattle has ambitious plans to roll the dice and move ahead several spaces on the King County Monopoly game board. And so do many others. However, many serious questions have arisen from a proposed “land swap” deal. Most bluntly, is it even legal?

Stuart Jenner, a citizen of Normandy Park , raised the question to several legislators along with the State Auditor and the AG. Specifically, is there a legal, lawful justification for the Port of Seattle to spend tax dollars on a recreational trail or even a rail line that doesn’t carry freight to and from a Port facility? What do recreational trails have to do with running an Airport or Seaport? Mr. Jenner asks.

It appears that the Port and the County have figured out a way to obfuscate the fact they may not have the authority, by creating an MOU. A memorandum of understanding, which attempts to lump together disparate parcels and projects, in order to create a justification for the Port’s involvement other than just to control King County airport.

“The Attorney General’s Office does not have general investigatory authority over local governmental entities such as the Port of Seattle ”, according to an email Mr. Jenner received from Jean Wilkinson, AG Senior Counsel, when he asked the AG office whether they were looking into the proposed transaction.

But RCW Title 53, authorizes Port districts to “construct, improve, maintain, and operate public park and recreation facilities when such facilities are necessary to more fully utilize boat landings, harbors, wharves and piers, air, land, and water passenger and transfer terminals, waterways, and other port facilities authorized by law pursuant to the port's comprehensive plan of harbor improvements and industrial development”.

Mr Jenner notes “the rail trail isn’t part of the port’s comprehensive plan for industrial development. Second, it won’t help more fully utilized terminals or other port facilities.”

The Memorandum of Understanding has few details about financing. In it, the Port will buy the rail corridor and lease it to the county, but for how long? for how much? If the county spends $100 million on capital improvements, what becomes of that investment and how does the auditor treat those funds? Further, what is the status of the Harbor Island property? Is this a "gift" or actually a part of a for value trade where there is no "Gift of public assets"? The county paid $8.5 million for the Harbor Island property, what are they getting in return for giving it to the Port? What is the extent of consultation that the county is obligated to engage in on King County Airport and just exactly how much authority is involved?

A key goal for the Port seems to be to preserve their monopoly at Sea Tac Airport. But will it hamstring future King County Executives from executing his or her elected, official duties? Does the democratically elected Executive and the voters who would elect him/her, have the right to expect that the assets of King County are fully within their control? And will it be used to its full potential for the citizens of King County ? or will the Executive have to go hat-in-hand to the Port for permission to develop/improve? Could the Port raise taxes, without a public vote, and spend the money on King County airport? Who should voters go to with questions about Boeing field, the Port or the County? Who is in control?

We are continuing to investigate the legality of the proposed transaction. Stay tuned.