HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1992-D6078 Right of way / Truax / Yakima Valley TransportationRESOLUTION NO.' 60
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk of
the City of Yakima to execute a Personal Services
Agreement for title confirmation services.
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima owns certain parcels of land
by virtue of a 1985 Deed from the Yakima Valley Transportation
Company; and
WHEREAS, the City needs to complete the title record
documentation for this land, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute the attached agreement entitled "Personal
Services Agreement."
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2A. day of KAUAI%
1992.
PATRCA A. ERNDT
ATTEST:
Is! KAREN S. CRC
City Clerk
(res/prsnlsrv.rpl)
Mayor
PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of
1992, between the CITY OF YAKIMA, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima,
Washington 98901, hereinafter known as "CITY"; and TOM TRUAX,
hereinafter known as "CONTRACTOR".
WHEREAS, the CITY requires negotiation services relating to
title confirmation for certain parcels of land acquired from Yakima
Valley Transportation Company; and
WHEREAS, the consultant represents that he has a valid Wash-
ington Real Estate Broker's License and has the expertise necessary
to perform the negotiation services required by the CITY, now,
therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall provide
professional negotiation services for the purpose of confirming the
CITY'S title to approximately eighty (80) parcels of former Yakima
Valley Transportation Company (YVT) right-of-way, including, but
not limited to, the negotiation of crossing agreements, licenses,
and instruments/deeds to clear any cloud on the CITY'S title. In
performing the foregoing services, CONTRACTOR agrees to the fol-
lowing conditions:
A. CONTRACTOR shall make no less than three (3) personal
contacts, if needed, with each adjacent property owner in order to
obtain a duly executed and recordable instrument confirming the
CITY'S fee simple title in and to the former YVT property.
B. CONTRACTOR shall no later than the second contact explain
the CITY'S position and request execution of an appropriate title
confirmation instrument.
C. CONTRACTOR shall keep and make available to the CITY a
complete and legible diary of each contact. The diary shall in-
clude date, time, place, person contacted, the concerns and inter-
est expressed by the adjacent land owner, the adjacent land owner's
willingness to cooperation with the CITY'S title confirmation
process, and any other information deemed necessary for a complete
understanding of what occurred during the negotiations. Upon
completion of the negotiation process, the diary shall become the
property of the CITY for its permanent records.
D. CONTRACTOR shall attempt to obtain a title confirmation
instrument for each parcel identified by the CITY.
E. CONTRACTOR shall keep all information acquired and de-
veloped at any time during the negotiation process secret and
confidential, and CONTRACTOR shall not reveal any information
concerning or relating to this agreement or the negotiation process
to any other person or organization without the express written
consent of the CITY or a court order so requiring.
Page 1 of 3
(agr/prsnlsrv.rpl)
F. The CITY shall provide contractor with necessary legal
support and legal instruments to accomplish the title clearance
objectives contemplated by this agreement.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT. CONTRACTOR shall begin work on March 23,
1992 and complete the negotiation services specified in Section 1
of this agreement on or before August 31, 1992. CONTRACTOR shall
make whatever time investments are necessary for the full comple-
tion of the services prior to August 31, 1992, including completion
of all agreements, licenses, and real property instruments.
3. CONSIDERATION. In consideration the consulting services to be
provided as set forth in Section 1 above and CONTRACTOR'S perform-
ance of all other terms and conditions of this agreement, CITY
agrees to pay CONTRACTOR Forty One Dollars ($41.00) per hour in a
total amount not to exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is agreed and understood that
CONTRACTOR is an independent contractor, and none of CONTRACTOR'S
employees shall be considered an employee of the CITY. CONTRACTOR
and CONTRACTOR'S employees shall make no claim of CITY employment
or claim any related employment benefits from the CITY, including
but not limited to, medical benefits, social security, and retire-
ment. CONTRACTOR'S employees shall not be subject to the control
or direction of CITY officers or CITY employees. CONTRACTOR shall
protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its agents, and
employees harmless from and against any damages or costs incurred
by the CITY as a result of any claim for employee: status.
5. INTEGRATION. This written document constitutes the entire and
exclusive agreement between the parties hereto. No other under-
standings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this
agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties
hereto. No changes or additions to this agreement shall be valid
or binding upon either party unless such change or addition be in
writing and executed by both parties.
6. ASSIGNMENT. CONTRACTOR shall not assign this agreement to any
other person or entity without the prior written consent of the
CITY. In the event that such prior written consent to an assign-
ment is granted, then the assignee shall assume all duties, obliga-
tions, and liabilities of CONTRACTOR.
7. LITIGATION. In the event that any, suit or action is insti-
tuted by either party to enforce compliance with or interpret any
of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this agreements, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to collect, in addition to
necessary court costs, such sums as the court may adjudge as rea-
sonable attorney fees. The venue for any action to enforce or
interpret this agreement shall lie in the Superior Court of Wash-
ington for Yakima County, Washington.
Page 2 of 3
(agr/prsnisrv.rpl)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement the day
and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF YAKIMA
By:
City Clerk Richard A. Zais, Jr.
City Manager
CONTRACTOR
By:
Tom Truax
Page 3 of 3
(agr/prsnlsrv.rpl>
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 1991
TO: Members of the City Council and
Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: John Vanek, City Attorney and
Raymond L. Paolella, Assistant City Attorney
Jerry Copeland, Director of Public Works, and
Glenn Rice, Director of Community & Economic Development
SUBJ: Options for City -Owned YVT Railroad Rights -of -Way
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with an update on
the status of the City -owned YVT property and to suggest options
for managing this property.
There are two former YVT railroad lines owned by the City in the
West Valley area: the Wiley City main line and the Henry Bro main
line. Both lines start on South 64th Avenue south of Nob Hill
Boulevard near the Congdon Orchards property. The Wiley City line
varies from 10 to 30 feet in width. The Henry Bro line varies
from 20 to 70 feet in width. Both lines are approximately 5 miles
in length, and they run generally in a westerly direction from
South 64th Avenue.
In addition, the Chestnut Spur of the YVT starts at the intersec-
tion of South 48th Avenue and Nob Hill Boulevard and runs west and
north for approximately one mile to West Chestnut Avenue in the
vicinity of 52nd Avenue. The east -west segment of this spur
(along Nob Hill Boulevard) is 17 1/2 feet in width. The north -
south segment of this spur is 16 feet in width. There is also a
.2 acre triangular parcel at the intersection of these two seg-
ments at Nob Hill Boulevard and South 52nd Avenue.
The railroad company used approximately 80 different deeds in
order to acquire the right-of-way for these three lines. In 1985,
the railroad company permanently ceased railroad operations on the
YVT lines. All of the property was then conveyed to the City of
Yakima by donation quit -claim deed. However, ttze City's title to
this property is clouded because of ambiguities in the original
railroad right-of-way deeds dating from the turn of the century.
Legal problems exist in the deed language and because the areas in
question were excluded from subsequent conveyances.
Considering the length and width of the right-of-way segments,
some of this property could have significant fair market value if
- 1 -
(mem/yvtoptns)
the City's title is cleared and confirmed. Also the value of
maintaining this property as a contiguous transportation corridor
may be greater than the sum of the values of the individual seg-
ments.
To date, our efforts have focused on starting the title clearing
process. Dave Flaherty has contacted a couple of the landowners
adjacent to the Chestnut Spur, and one has indicated a willingness
to cooperate in confirming the City's ownership of the former
railroad property. In accordance with previous Council direction,
the Chestnut Spur will be used as a "test case" or demonstration
_of the title confirming process. Due to lack of time, Dave
Flaherty has been unable to contact the remainder of the property
owners on the Chestnut Spur.
OPTIONS
At this point in time, the City hasthree options:
Option 1: The City could attempt to sell or otherwise trans-
fer title in this property to private individuals or entities
after the property is declared surplus.
Option 2: The City could transfer ownership of the property
to the County for possible use as a recreation corridor, if
the County would accept it with clouded title and use re-
strictions.
Option 3: The City could continue with the title confirma-
tion process and retain the YVT corridor for recreation and
non -motorized transportation use. This should be substan-
tially accomplished within the next year in order to avoid
the possibility that adjacent landowners could claim it by
adverse possession. There are current reports of adverse use
by adjacent property owners, and Washington's adverse posses-
sion statute has a seven year duration.
D ISCUSSION
Option 3 is recommended. Policy wise, the City has a rare oppor-
tunity for a unique recreation and transportation corridor similar
to Seattle's Burke Gilman Trail. such a use may fall into the
City's growth management plan. The corridor can be easily con-
nected to existing recreation and transportation corridors (e.g.,
Chestnut bike path) or may be used as part of a future non -motor-
ized transportation corridor.
Sale of the property may bring little revenue. Transfer to anoth-
er entity assumes that entity is willing and able to follow the
City's recreation and transportation wishes.
- 2
(mem/yvtoptns)
It will be very difficult to effectively consider or implement any
use or disposition of this former railroad property until the City
has cleared the presently clouded title. We currently lack some
important information regarding the extent of the City's interest
in the various segments of property. Accordingly, it is recom-
mended that the City complete the title confirmation process
before making a final policy decision on the use/disposition of
the property. First priority should be given to completion of the
Chestnut Spur because it can serve as a model for clearing the
legal cloud from the remainder of the property.
In order to expedite this option 3, the City needs to contract
with a title agent on an hourly basis for the purpose of meeting
with individual landowners and obtaining their cooperation with
the title clearing process. It is estimated that this will take
an average of 1-2 hours of time for each of the approximately 80
parcels. At $50.00 per hour, this will cost approximately
$10,000.00 over the next year. We anticipate that the City's
title can be confirmed on many segments by a title agent negoti-
ating with individual landowners. Other than the cost of the
title agent's time, there should not be any significant cost
involved. However, it is likely that a few of the property owners
will resist cooperating with the City. In this case, the City may
need to consider filing a quiet title action to complete the title
clearing process.
We anticipate that most of the adjacent landowners will not ac-
tively challenge the City in litigation because of the high cost
involved. A decision on quiet title litigation can be deferred
until we have a better feeling for how the adjacent landowners
will respond.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve limited funding from
the Trolley Fund for the purpose of hiring a title agent on an
hourly basis so that the City can move forward with the title
confirmation process as outlined above. The title agent should
not have authority to pay anything to remove clouds on the City's
title. At this time, payment does not appear justified and would
be a poor precedent. However, the title agent should be autho-
rized to negotiate crossing agreements, licenses, and similar
instruments which would allow private incidental use of the right-
of-way to facilitate settlement of the underlying cloud. General-
ly, the title agent should be allowed to say that the City contem-
plates use of the area as a recreation and non -motorized
transportation area.
Because of the potential for litigation, we recommend against any
public meetings or public policy pronouncements at the present
time since these would very likely have a tendency to fuel anti -
City sentiments in the West Valley area and galvanize opposition
to the City's title clearing process. This would probably weaken
- 3 -
tmem/yvtoptns)
the City's legal position considerably. If the title clearing
process is completed first, the City's legal position will be
enhanced, and there will be ample opportunity to seek public
comment on the future use of this -property at that time.
In summary, staff recommends option 3. Implementation should be
immediate to avoid the legal consequences of adverse possession.
Finally, the Legal Department takes no policy view as to how the
property in question is to be used. Traditionally, the Legal
Department only advises on legal, and not, policy issues.
RLP/las
- 4
(mem/yvtoptns)
,r^
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. /.-
Meeting of March 24 1992
ITEM TITLE: Resolution authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk
of the City of Yakima to execute a Personal Services Agreement for
title confirmation services.
SUBMITTED BY: Denny Covell, Director of Engineering & Utilities
John Vanek, City Attorne
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Raymond L. aolella, Asst. City Attorney
575-6030
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: At a City Council executive session last
year, the Council directed staff to proceed with the title confir-
mation process for properties owned by the City by virtue of a
Yakima Valley Transportation Company conveyance in 1985. Although
the City owns this property, the City needs to confirm that the
land records are properly documented. Pursuant to Council direc-
tion, this agreement for personal services will provide for com-
pletion of this title confirmation process under the supervision
of the Director of Engineering & Utilities.
***************************************************************************************
*
* X RESOLUTION
*
ORDINANCE coN RACP
*
NOTIFICATION LIST OTHER
*
*
* APPRovED FtR SUBMITTAL:
*
*
MINUTES PLAN/MAP
CITY MANAGER
***************************************************************************************
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution No. D-6078
(state/prsnlsrv.rpl)