Council approves authorization to pursue condemnation, with amendment, for 128th Street East widening amid resident protests

The Pierce County Council on Jan. 20 adopted Ordinance O2025-535s, authorizing the prosecuting attorney to commence condemnation proceedings after a minimum 180-day good-faith negotiation period to acquire property rights needed for County Road Project 58-42 (widening 128th Street East from State Route 162 to the Puyallup River).

County staff said the project is part of a larger multi‑phased effort to improve safety and traffic flow and to connect SR‑162 with new development areas. Staff described Exhibit A (parcel descriptions) and Exhibit B (legal notice) and presented a technical amendment to Exhibit B to update the public-notice affidavit and correct the meeting location.

"Condemnation is a very involved process," Leticia Neal, Pierce County’s county engineer, told the council, describing required steps: adoption into a plan (the county’s TIP), a council ordinance finding public necessity, good‑faith offers and negotiations, a 180‑day waiting period after an initial offer, and referral to the deputy prosecuting attorney if settlement fails. "Our intent is to reach a settlement," Neal said, but she cautioned that acquisition sometimes requires court proceedings to resolve disputes over value.

Several property owners told the council they have experienced years of shifting timelines, inconsistent notices and offers they said undervalue structures and fences. "They offered me $12,000 for a fence that I can't replace for less than $22,000," property owner Ron Bowman said, adding that the county had repeatedly postponed signings and that offers for a garage and land did not reflect his bids and valuations. Multiple residents described stress, confusion about certified-mail notices, and concerns about relocation options.

Staff responded that certified mail and publication in the newspaper of record are used for required notices and that appraisals and review appraisals set the starting offer. Neal described the appraisal and review process and said right‑of‑way agents negotiate offers on the county’s behalf.

Councilmembers acknowledged the emotional difficulty for homeowners while stressing the county's need to secure rights to complete long‑planned safety projects. Councilmember Kuver, while expressing sympathy for affected residents, supported proceeding; Councilmember Kruger recorded the lone nay. The roll-call vote on O2025-535s as amended was: Yambe — Aye; Denson — Aye; Morrell — Aye; Herrera — Aye; Kruger — Nay; Ayala — Aye; Hitchens — Aye. The motion carried, 6–1.

The ordinance authorizes the prosecuting attorney to file for condemnation only after notices, offers and a 180‑day negotiation period. Staff said exhibit materials include lists of parcels and public‑notice affidavits; the county reported the project has an allocation in the transportation budget for 2026 (staff cited a figure in the meeting record). The council adopted the technical amendment to Exhibit B before approving the ordinance.

Next steps: staff will continue negotiations with property owners, pursue additional outreach to clarify notices and offers upon request, and, if settlement cannot be reached, the prosecuting attorney may seek a judicial determination of public necessity and compensation.