Sumner’s 24th Street intersection could be a scary place. Councilwoman Cindi Hochstetter described turning out of the Mustardseed Market and Deli’s parking lot and toward the lightless truck route as dangerous and frightening.
Well, no longer.
City council voted unanimously Aug. 15 to approve the formation of a Local Improvement District, paving the way for improvements to the intersection and the rest of the 136th Avenue corridor from 24th St. E. to 16th St. E.
The well-used truck route is targeted for a roadway widening, the installation of traffic lights, and the addition of pedestrian and bike access, among other improvements to be achieved via an interlocal agreement with the City of Pacific.
Sumner’s $6.8 million portion of the project will be funded in part by $1.5 million in job development funds, in part by city funds, and in part by grant funding pursued through the state Transportation Improvement Board and Federal surface transportation funding. Grants and government monies account for 78 percent of the project’s funding, City Engineer Mike Dahlem said. The remaining 22 percent will be funded by the road’s surrounding property owners through the LID.
An LID is an infrastructure funding mechanism by which a government funds a public works project through a financing deal with immediately affected properties. Properties are valued before and after the project, and property owners pay the difference. The contribution can then be discounted from traffic mitigation fees on development.
“One advantage of an LID is that a project can be built all at once,” Dahlem said. “You won’t have an owner come in and build a section and then somebody a few doors down build a section.”
In the case of the 136th Avenue LID, improvements are estimated for completion sometime within the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015. Property owners will have the option of paying the balance in 30 days, or financing their contribution over 10 to 15 years.
The 136th Avenue LID could only be achieved with a majority of the properties petitioning on behalf of the deal. A majority petition was achieved Aug. 15, though a bare one at 51.8 percent of property owners.
The razor thin margin was a cause of concern for Councilman Steve Allsop.
“It just seems a little hair by the chinny-chin-chin,” he said, wondering aloud how the remaining property owners felt about the LID.
Dahlem responded that the holdouts weren’t necessarily against the project.
“For most of the property owners that didn’t petition, it didn’t seem like they were necessarily against the LID,” he said. “They just might not be ready to step up to an LID. Some don’t know yet what they want to do with their property.”
Among several property owners who stepped to the podium to speak on the project, a common concern was whether they would be allowed zoning reform as a benefit granted for participation in the LID; in other words, an easier path toward developing their land.
Tracy Walker, a property trustee who came south from Alaska to contribute to the LID discussion, and eventually topped off the majority support, summed up the perspective thusly:
“Right now (undeveloped), the properties aren’t earning anything,” she said. “If we develop, we can pay for the cost of an LID from generated income.”
Even though the financing plan has been voted in, property owners have a 30 day window from the night of the vote to change their mind. A 60 percent petition against the deal would dissolve the LID.
