Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Conveyance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses SeaTac right‑of‑way deed for Valley View; asks for more information before final action
Summary
Board members and staff discussed a proposed five‑foot right‑of‑way dedication along Military Road for the Valley View Early Learning modular replacement and asked staff to return with additional legal and permitting details before final action.
The Highline School District Board discussed a proposed conveyance of a five‑foot strip of land along the east side of Valley View property to the city of SeaTac to support sidewalk and right‑of‑way improvements tied to the district’s Valley View Early Learning modular replacement project.
Why it matters: The dedication would allow the city to complete and ultimately maintain a public sidewalk along Military Road. District staff said the property being dedicated has no identifiable future district use beyond a sidewalk alignment; the estimated fair market value for the strip was presented at about $28,400. Staff also said the district will be responsible for constructing the sidewalk before turning the right‑of‑way over to the city, after which the city will maintain it.
What staff presented: Jackie Bridal, CFO, described the updated resolution and attached deed included in the board report. The conveyance runs the full length of the property along Military Road and was described as required by SeaTac because Military Road is classified as a main arterial. The board packet included a resolution (0525), a right‑of‑way dedication deed and exhibits describing the property and map. Jackie said the district would still be responsible for construction of the improvements and would transfer maintenance responsibility for the dedicated strip to the city after completion.
Board questions and clarifications: Directors asked whether an easement could be used instead of a deed transfer and whether the city could compensate the district. Staff said the city typically takes deeds in these circumstances but would explore the option of an easement; Perkins Coie (district counsel) had reviewed the draft resolution and deed. Board members asked whether signing the deed immediately was legally required to obtain permits; staff said the city indicated a temporary permit may be possible and that the city would not block construction if the board needed time to consider the deed, provided the district communicates intent in writing.
Outcome: The item had been moved earlier in the meeting from the consent agenda to be reintroduced at a later date; after the April 14 discussion staff agreed to follow up with the city and provide additional information. No final board approval of the deed occurred on April 14; staff said they will return with any additional documentation and recommendations for action.
Ending: District staff will report back with additional legal and procedural information, including whether an easement is feasible, whether compensation is permissible, and the city’s written position on permitting while the board considers the conveyance.
