King County emails dispute city of Kent’s stand on Pine Tree Park

King County officials claim they didn’t mislead Kent city leaders and staff about how funds from a planned sale of Pine Tree Park could be used.

Several members of the Kent City Council blamed county officials for not letting the city know that any proceeds from the proposed sale of the 10-acre neighborhood park must be used to purchase property of equal or greater parks and recreational value or open space value.

The council planned to sell the park to housing developer Oakpointe Communities but backed out of the deal on April 5, in part because councilmembers said they initially thought when they approved the sale in September that the $2 million in proceeds could be spent to upgrade any park.

The city will reimburse Oakpointe $760,000 for expenses to date as part of the settlement.

Christie True, county director of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, said in a Feb. 9 email to Mayor Suzette Cooke that city staff knew as far back as 2013 how proceeds from selling the park must be spent. The city released numerous emails about the park to the Kent Reporter through a public records request.

“We have several communications dating back to 2013 and 2014 between King County Real Estate Services and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Barb Fleming and David (Galazin), city of Kent (deputy) attorney, and other city employees where we discuss with city employees and the city attorney the conditions and the process to dispose of Forward Thrust property,” True said. “The emails that the city attorney and other city officials sent lead one to believe that the conditions must have been known by the city dating back that far.”

King County voters approved a Forward Thrust measure in the 1960s to allow the purchase of the land near 114th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 274th Street for a park. Kent later annexed the park from the county. The property had deed restrictions set by the bond measure about how proceeds of a park sale could be used.

Fleming sent an email to Galazin on Aug. 1, 2014 that explained the county’s position.

“Since the property is now in Kent’s possession, it seems to me that you folks need to make the determination of whether your actions are consistent with the deed restrictions,” Fleming said. “However, I spoke to Pete Ramels who heads our Transportation and Real Property section. He advised me that there were some cities who received these properties who requested the county’s involvement in such transfers to ensure that they were acting in accordance with the deed restriction.”

As far back as 2013, Galazin wrote an email to a city parks planner that broke down the process of selling Pine Tree Park.

“The deed restriction imposed by the county on this parcel remains in effect, and after speaking with the county, it is clear that it intends to hold the city to that restriction,” Galazin said in a Feb. 13, 2013 email. “The city can, however, trade the parcel for another park or open space parcel that is equivalent in both value and functionality. ”

Kent city officials wanted to sell the park to help boost a parks budget that needs millions of dollars of repairs and upgrades.

City Attorney Tom Brubaker said in an email in February to Kevin Wright, chief civil deputy with the county’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, that the city took the proper steps in preparing the park for sale and worked with Kevin Brown, county director of the Parks and Recreation Division, to get approval.

“This all may have been a huge miscommunication, but it is our firm belief that the whole concept had been thoroughly vetted and approved with and by your clients,” Brubaker said in a Feb. 4 email.

True responded to Brubaker’s comment in her email to Mayor Cooke.

“I am not sure if there has been a miscommunication on this issue, but if this proposal (to sell the park for repairs at other parks) had been thoroughly vetted and approved by King County as Mr. Brubaker states, there is no record of it,” True said.

Derek Matheson, city chief administrative officer who gave the council a staff update about terminating the sale prior to the vote, said in a April 8 email to the Kent Reporter that county and city staff weren’t clear with each other about how proceeds could be handled.

“There was certainly confusion about the use of sale proceeds,” Matheson said in response to whether the county or city was at fault for inaccurate information given to the council. “The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office initially said we needed to use the proceeds to buy land of equivalent parks and recreation value. Later, the county and city parks directors discussed the use of sale proceeds to make improvements to an existing park.

“Following the public outcry in February, the county Department of Natural Resources and Parks (the parent department of the county Parks Department) and county Prosecuting Attorney’s Office advised us we needed to buy land. I believe that had we relied more heavily on written communication with the county parks department, the confusion could have been avoided.”