RES 95-13 MEETING TO DECLARE CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY AS SURPLUSRESOLUTION NO. 95-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND, WASHINGTON, SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RECEIVING COMMENTS RELATIVE TO DECLARING CITY
OWNED REAL PROPERTY AS SURPLUS TO THE CITY'S NEEDS.
WHEREAS, the City owns real property, more fully defined as Tax Lot
g4101-003-006-0008, as shown on attached Exhibit A, upon which was situated a water
reservoir, which has recently been demolished and removed, and
WHEREAS, the City has an easement providing ingress and egress to said water
reservoir site (Exhibit B), and
WHEREAS, the properties are now surplus to the City's needs, and
WHEREAS, the City has had made an appraisal of the property to establish its value for
disposal, and
WHEREAS, the property is located in an area zoned R-8 (eight residential units per
acre), and
WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 39.33.020, the City is required to hold a Public
Heating to obtain comments relative to declaring such property as surplus prior to disposal.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,
HEREI~Y RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A Public Hearing is hereby scheduled for 7:00 PM on Thursday, May 4,
1995, to receive comments from the public relative to the City declaring said property
as surplus to the City's needs.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish this notice of a
scheduled Public Heating as required by RCW 35.79.010 and RCW 39.33.020.
PASSED by the City Council this 6th day of April, 1995.
APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of April, 1995.
JANET K. WEST, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Susan Kasper, City Clerk
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ~/~/fld~ ~/1~¢3"'
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.:
file - wab\work\wlsmkph. res 03-24-95
March 15, 1995
William Bryan
Director of Public Works
City of Bainbridge Island
625 Winslow Way East
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
RECE!VE
~AR 16 ~99~i
PUBL. JC
RE: City of Bainbridge Island Water Tower Site, Bainbridge Island, Washington
Dear Mr. Bryan:
This letter supplements my appraisal of January 12, 1995, on the above-referenced property.
Pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 35.79, concerning Streets-
Vacation, and further elaborated in the City of Bainbridge Island's Municipal Code, Chapter
12.34, amended by Ordinance No. 94-32, the parcel to be vacated must be offered to the
abutting property owners. Under the terms of the ordinance, they are to pay one-half of the
appraised value of the area to be vacated and any costs associated with the physical closure
of the road and any repairs required in this process. If the area to be vacated, however, was
acquired at public expense, the abutting owners must pay the full appraised value.
My appraisal estimated two values: 1) the value to the abutting property owners on the west
and east, and 2) the value on the open market to a member of the general public. My
analysis of the first value found that only the ownerships of the parcels abutting the subject
parcel on the west and east would benefit from acquiring the entire property to be vacated.
Indeed, the abutting property owner to the north would have little if no incentive to acquire
the subject, since its acquisition does not enhance his potential density nor does it provide
significant side yard. The second value is predicated on the notion that a breed of speculators
exists in the marketplace that acquire property for the sake of acquiring it, and not for any
particular purpose. Their idea is to hold the property until there is a market for it, at which
time the speculator may realize a significant return on his original investment. After reading
the appropriate city ordinances, I am persuaded that the first value is the appropriate value
for your purposes, and I assume that the abutting owners on the east and west have been
notified by the city about is intention to sell the surplus property.
Consequently, under the terms of the ordinance, the full Market Value of the property to be
vacated must be allocated to each of the abutting property owners from which the parcel
ostensibly originated. I assume the parcel was acquired with public funds, since according
to the recorded plat of Chatham Hill (Vol. 8, Page 41), records of Kitsap County, no
Richard L ssociates
dedication of the water tower site is made. Therefore, the Market Value of the surplus water
tower site is allocated as follows:
$13,000 + 2 = $6,500 to each abutting ownership
In conclusion, owners of the abutting properties (012-00 and 005-00) are each respomible for
$6,500 to successfully conclude the sale of the surplus water tower site as spelled out in the
municipal ordinance.
I would also like to bring to your attention the attached Quit Claim Deed which I discovered
while digging ttu'ough a title company's records. It appears that the city does have an
easement across the north 10' of Lot 12 for ingress and egress and for laying a pipeline.
Although this document gives the subject parcel a legal access, it does not change my analysis
of the subject's highest and best use.
If you should need further clarification regarding this appraisal or have any additional
question, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
J. Randolph Mosher, MAI
i I
L 0 VELL
AVE
AVE
EXHIBIT "A"
NW
PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION MAP
I
Quit CJaim Deed
EXHIBIT "B"