Answer-Waterfont LID Lawsuit

1 FILED HONORABLE KEN SCHUBERT
2019 MAY 02 03:23 PM

2 KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
3 E-FILED
CASE #: 19-2-08787-1 SEA
4
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
9 EUGENE A. BURRUS and LEAH S.
BURRUS, husband and wife and the marital No.: 19-2-08787-1 SEA
10 community comprised thereof; WILLIAM J.
JUSTEN and SANDRA L. JUSTEN, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND
11 husband and wife and the marital AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
community comprised thereof; THEODORE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
12 T. TANASE and PRISCILLA B. TANASE, DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
husband and wife and the marital DAMAGES
13 community comprised thereof; DAVID
STARR, an individual; VASANTH
14 PHILOMIN and KARIN PHILOMIN,
husband and wife and the marital
15 community comprised thereof; DANIEL
TUPPER and PATRICIA TUPPER,
16 husband and wife and the marital
community comprised thereof; JOHN
17 DRINKARD and JANET DRINKARD,
husband and wife and the marital
18 community comprised thereof; JANE
FINCH, an individual; FRANK KATZ and
19 ELISE KATZ, husband and wife and the
marital community comprised thereof;
20 DEBORAH BOGIN COHEN and
RICHARD B. OSTERBERG, Trustees of
21 the ZVI Cohen Family Trust; JOHN A.
BATES and CAROLYN CORVI, husband
22 and wife and the marital community
comprised thereof; HARVEY ALLISON
23 and MEI WENG ALLISON, husband and
wife and the marital community comprised
24 thereof; VICTOR C. MOSES and MARY K.
MOSES, Trustees under the 2007 Moses
25 Trust; NANCY E. DORN and CAROL A.
VERGA, a married couple; ALEXANDER
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

925 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 2900
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SEATTLE, WA 98104-1158
TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
DAMAGES - 1 FACSIMILE: +1 206 623 7022
1 W. BRINDLE, SR., an individual; TOM H.
PEYREE and SALLY L. PEYREE, Trustee
2 of The Thomas H. Peyree and Sally L.
Peyree Revocable Trust; ANTON P.
3 GIELEN and KAREN N. GIELEN, husband
and wife and the marital community
4 comprised thereof; KEITH PAUL
KLUGMAN and MAGDERIE KLUGMAN,
5 husband and wife and the marital
community comprised thereof; ANDREW P.
6 MARIN and CYNTHIA J. MARIN,
Trustees of the Andrew P. Marin and
7 Cynthia J. Marin Family Revocable Trust;
DANIEL S. FRIEDMAN and MYRA A.
8 FRIEDMAN, husband and wife and the
marital community comprised thereof;
9 HOLLY MORRIS, an individual; RONALD
EVAN WALLACE, an individual; and
10 CHRISTY KINNAIRD, an individual,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 vs.
13 CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington

municipal corporation,
14
Defendant.
15
16 ANSWER
17
Defendant the City of Seattle (“City”), by way of answer to the Complaint for
18
Declaratory Relief and Damages (“Complaint”), filed by Plaintiffs 1 states and alleges as
19
follows:
20
21
1
22 The Plaintiffs are: Eugene A. Burrus and Leah S. Burrus; William J. Justen and Sandra
L. Justen; Theodore T Tanase and Priscilla B. Tanase; David Starr; Vasanth Philomin and
23 Karin Philomin; Daniel Tupper and Patricia Tupper; John Drinkard and Janet Drinkard;
Jane Finch; Frank Katz and Elise Katz; Deborah Bogin Cohen and Richard B. Osterberg;
24 John A. Bates and Carolyn Corvi; Harvey Allison and Mei Weng Allison; Victor C.
Moses and Mary K. Moses; Nancy E. Dorn and Carol A. Verga; Alexander W. Brindle
25 Sr.; Tom H. Peyree and Sally L. Peyree; Anton P. Gielen and Karen N. Gielen; Keith Paul
Klugman and Magderie Klugman; Andrew P. Marin and Cynthia J. Marin; and Daniel S.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 I. Introduction
2 The City admits that it created a Waterfront Local Improvement District
3 (“Waterfront LID”) pursuant to Chapter 35.43 RCW, Seattle City Council (“City
4 Council”) Bills 119447, 119448, and 119449, and City Ordinances 125760, 125761, and
5 125762. The City also admits that it has issued a preliminary assessment roll and that the
6 City intends to issue a final assessment roll to assess properties within the Waterfront LID
7 which specially benefit from the Waterfront LID improvements, including assessments to
8 the Plaintiffs’ properties and other properties from T-Mobile Park to Denny Way and from
9 Elliott Bay to I-5, to collectively raise $160 million, exclusive of financing. The City
10 denies the remaining allegations in the Introduction paragraph of the Complaint.
11 II. Jurisdiction and Venue
12 2.1 The City admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.1 of the Complaint with
13 respect to any claim encompassed in RCW 35.43.100. The City otherwise denies the
14 allegations in Paragraph 2.1 of the Complaint.
15 2.2 The City admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.2 of the Complaint.
16 III. Parties
17 3.1 The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
18 the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3.1 of the Complaint, and accordingly denies the
19 same.
22 same.
23
24
25 Friedman and Myra A. Friedman; Holly Morris; Ronald Evan Wallace; and Christy
Kinnaird.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
3 same.
6 same.
9 same.
12 same.
15 same.
18 same.
21 same.
24 same.
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
3 same.
6 same.
9 same.
12 same.
15 same.
18 same.
21 same.
24 same.
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
3 same.
6 same.
9 same.
12 same.
15 same.
18 same.
19 3.25 The City admits the allegation in Paragraph 3.25 of the Complaint.
20 3.26 Responding to Paragraph 3.26 of the Complaint, the City admits that it is
21 the employer of Mayor Jenny Durkan and City Council members Sally Bagshaw, Lorena
22 Gonzalez, Rob Johnson, Deborah Juarez, Teresa Mosqueda, Kshama Sawant, and Mike
23 O’Brien. The City denies any allegation of wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 3.26 of the
24 Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.26 of the
25 Complaint.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 IV. Facts
2 4.1 Responding to Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint, the City admits that on
3 August 13, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 31399 that included references to a
4 Central Waterfront Committee Strategic Plan, a Central Waterfront concept Design and
5 Framework Plan, and a Funding Plan for the Waterfront Improvement Program. The City
6 otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint.
7 4.2 Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, which do not
8 require a response. To the extent a response is required, the City admits that Chapters
9 35.43 and 35.44 RCW, inter alia, describe the City’s authority to create local
10 improvement districts and certain requirements and procedures for same, the content of
11 which speaks for itself. To the extent that Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint alleges any
12 wrongdoing by the City, the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint.
13 4.3 Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions, which do not
14 require a response. To the extent that Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint alleges any
15 wrongdoing by the City, the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint.
16 4.4 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.4 of the Complaint.
17 4.5 Responding to Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint, the City admits that it
18 passed Resolution 31812 in May 2018, the content of which speaks for itself. To the
19 extent that Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint alleges any wrongdoing by the City, the City
20 denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint.
21 4.6 Responding to Paragraph 4.6 of the Complaint, the City admits that
22 Ordinance 125760 authorizes the City to assess up to $160 million dollars of special
23 benefit, exclusive of financing, against property owners in the Waterfront LID. The City
24 denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.6 of the Complaint.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 4.8 Responding to Paragraph 4.8 of the Complaint, the City admits that the
2 Waterfront LID area stretches roughly from T-Mobile Park to Denny Way and roughly
3 from Elliot Bay to I-5 and that some properties to be assessed are not immediately
4 adjacent to planned improvements. The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph
5 4.8 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.8 of
6 the Complaint.
12 4.14 Responding to Paragraph 4.14 of the Complaint, the City admits that it
13 released a preliminary special benefit study in or around May 2018 and mailed letters to
14 affected property owners in or around June 2018, the content of which study and letters
15 speaks for themselves, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.14 of the
16 Complaint.
17 4.15 Responding to Paragraph 4.15 of the Complaint, the City admits that, from
18 July 13, 2018 to July 31, 2018, the Seattle Hearing Examiner received public comment
19 and held hearings on the City’s intent to form the Waterfront LID. The City otherwise
20 denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.15 of the Complaint.
21 4.15.1 The City admits that some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs submitted written
22 protests to the proposed Waterfront LID. The City otherwise denies any remaining
23 allegations in Paragraph 4.15.1 of the Complaint.
25 Hearing Examiner received approximately 333 comments on the Waterfront LID and that

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 the Hearing Examiner issued a report related to same and the hearings conducted, the
2 content of which speaks for itself. The City denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph
3 4.16 of the Complaint.
5 Waterfront LID formation is a “quasi-judicial process.” Plaintiffs’ allegation regarding
6 the consequences of a quasi-judicial process designation for City Council communications
7 consists of a legal conclusion which does not require a response. The City lacks
8 knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny statements made by City Council members to
9 individual property owners and thus denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.17 of
10 the Complaint.
11 4.18 The City lacks information sufficient to confirm or deny the statement
12 attributed to Mayor Durkan in Paragraph 4.18 of the Complaint and denies it on this basis.
14 4.20 Responding to Paragraph 4.20, the City admits that it published a public
15 memorandum on or around January 25, 2019, the content of which speaks for itself. The
16 City denies wrongdoing and therefore denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.20
17 of the Complaint.
19 City Council passed, and Mayor Durkan signed, Ordinance 125760 on January 28, 2019,
20 the content of which speaks for itself. The City denies any remaining allegations in
21 Paragraph 4.21 of the Complaint.
23 4.23 Paragraph 4.23 consists of legal conclusions that do not require a response.
24 To the extent a response is necessary, the City admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.23 of
25 the Complaint.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 4.24 Responding to Paragraph 4.24 of the Complaint, the City admits that prior
2 to 2013, members of the City Council were elected on a citywide basis.
4 Waterfront LID was the first City LID formed under the City Council’s district
5 representative model. The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 4.25 of the
6 Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.25 of the
7 Complaint.
10 Seattle voters may vote for three members of the City Council, including two at-large
11 members and one specific geographic district member. The City denies any wrongdoing
12 alleged in Paragraph 4.27 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the remaining allegations
13 in Paragraph 4.27 of the Complaint.
15 4.29 Paragraph 4.29 describes hypothetical situations that require no response.
16 To the extent a response is required, the City denies any wrongdoing alleged in paragraph
17 4.29 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.29 of the
18 Complaint.
21 4.32 Responding to Paragraph 4.32 of the Complaint, the City admits a meeting
22 of the Civic Development, Public Assets & Native Communities Committee was held on
23 May 2, 2018 and that the proposed Waterfront LID was on the agenda. The City denies
24 the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.32 of the Complaint.
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
2 Councilwoman Deborah Juarez was at the May 2, 2018 meeting of the Civic
3 Development, Public Assets & Native Communities Committee. The City denies any
4 wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 4.33, and therefore denies the remaining allegations in
5 Paragraph 4.33 of the Complaint.
7 4.35 The City admits that some, but not all, Plaintiffs submitted formal protests
8 and comments about the Waterfront LID to the City. The City otherwise denies any
9 remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.35 of the Complaint.
10 4.36 Responding to Paragraph 4.36 of the Complaint, the City lacks sufficient
11 information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
12 Paragraph 4.36 of the Complaint, and accordingly, denies the same.
13 4.37 Responding to Paragraph 4.37 of the Complaint, the City lacks sufficient
14 information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
15 Paragraph 4.37 of the Complaint, and accordingly, denies the same.
17 V. Causes of Action
19 5.1.1 Responding to Paragraph 5.1.1 of the Complaint, the City realleges
20 and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though
21 fully set forth herein.
22 5.1.2 Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions,
23 which do not require a response. To the extent a response is
24 required, the City admits that Article 1, Section 1 of the
25 Washington State Constitution states “governments derive their just

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 powers from the consent of the governed[.]” To the extent
2 Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Complaint alleges any wrongdoing by the
3 City, the City denies Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Complaint.
4 5.1.3 Paragraph 5.1.3 describes hypothetical situations that require no
5 response. To the extent a response is required, the City denies the
6 allegations in Paragraph 5.1.3 of the Complaint.
7 5.1.4 Paragraph 5.1.4 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions
9 required, the City denies any wrongdoing by the City and
10 accordingly denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.4 of the
11 Complaint.
12 5.1.5 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.5 of the Complaint.
13 5.1.6 Paragraph 5.1.6 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions
15 required, the City denies any wrongdoing by the City and
16 accordingly denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.6 of the
17 Complaint.
20 5.1.9 Responding to Paragraph 5.1.9 of the Complaint, the City admits
21 that Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as described, but denies
22 any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.1.9 of the Complaint, and
23 therefore denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
24 5.1.9 of the Complaint.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
4 5.2.2 Paragraph 5.2.2 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, which
5 do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, the
6 City admits Article 1, Section 3 of the Washington State
7 Constitution states “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
8 property, without due process of law.” To the extent Paragraph
9 5.2.2 of the Complaint alleges any wrongdoing by the City, the City
10 denies Paragraph 5.2.2 of the Complaint.
17 any wrongdoing in Paragraph 5.2.7 of the Complaint, and therefore
18 denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5.2.7 of
19 the Complaint.
24 5.3.2 Paragraph 5.3.2 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions, which
25 do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, the

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 City admits that Article 1, Section 4 of the Washington State
2 Constitution states “[t]he right of petition and of the people
3 peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be
4 abridged.” To the extent Paragraph 5.3.2 of the Complaint alleges
5 any wrongdoing by the City, the City denies Paragraph 5.3.2 of the
6 Complaint.
12 any wrongdoing in Paragraph 5.3.6 of the Complaint, and therefore
13 denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 5.3.6 of the
14 Complaint.
19 5.4.2 The City admits the allegation in Paragraph 5.4.2 of the Complaint.
22 5.4.4.1 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.4.4.1 of the
23 Complaint.
25 Complaint.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
2 Complaint.
4 Complaint.
6 Complaint.
8 Complaint.
10 Complaint.
12 Complaint.
13 5.4.5 The City denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.4.5 of the
14 Complaint, and therefore denies the allegations contained in
15 Paragraph 5.4.5 of the Complaint.
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
2 that Plaintiffs are petitioning for declaratory judgment as described,
3 but denies any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.4.9 of the
4 Complaint, and therefore denies any remaining allegations
5 contained in Paragraph 5.4.9 of the Complaint.
6 5.4.10 The City denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.4.10 of the
7 Complaint.
9 Complaint.
11 Complaint.
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
7 Complaint, and therefore denies any remaining allegations
8 contained in Paragraph 5.5.6 of the Complaint.
9 5.5.7 The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.5.7 of the
10 Complaint.
12 Complaint.
14 Complaint.
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
10 Complaint, and accordingly denies any remaining allegations in
24 but denies as wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.7.3 of the
25 Complaint.

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
14 5.8.3 Responding to Paragraph 5.8.3 of the Complaint, the City denies
15 any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.8.3 of the Complaint, but
16 lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form conclusions
17 regarding the allegations in Paragraph 5.8.3 of the Complaint and
18 accordingly denies the same.
22 5.8.5 To the extent Paragraph 5.8.5 of the Complaint references the City
23 Council’s memorandum issued on or around January 25, 2019 (first
24 referenced in Paragraph 4.19 of the Complaint), the City admits that
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 the document speaks for itself. The City otherwise denies any
2 remaining allegations in Paragraph 5.8.5 of the Complaint.
17 VI. Prayer for Relief
18 6.1 The City denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief request in
19 Section VI of the Complaint or to any other relief.
20 6.2 The City also denies each and every remaining allegation of the Complaint
21 not specifically admitted herein.
22 VII. AFFIRMATIVE OR ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
23 By way of further answer and defense, the City asserts the following affirmative
24 and/or additional defenses:
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against the City upon which relief can
2 be granted.
3 2. Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are premature, as the City has not finalized
4 the assessment roll for the Waterfront LID.
5 3. This Court is the improper forum for some or all of Plaintiffs’ challenges to
6 the Waterfront LID, as Chapter 35.43 RCW provides for an objection process following
7 the issuance of final assessments.
8 4. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the administrative process or otherwise
9 complete necessary preliminary steps required under Chapter 35.44 RCW prior to filing
10 this Complaint challenging Waterfront LID assessments.
11 5. Pursuant to Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855, 859 (1978), any
12 relief obtained must be limited to Plaintiffs’ parcels before the Court.
13 6. This court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment under Chapter
14 7.24 RCW for some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs have failed to present a
15 justiciable controversy.
16 7. Absent a justiciable controversy, Plaintiffs are requesting this court to issue
17 a prohibited advisory opinion regarding the constitutionality of the City’s district
18 representative model.
19 8. Plaintiffs’ challenge to the district representative model for electing
20 Seattle’s City Council must be resolved through the political or legislative process, rather
21 than through the courts.
22 9. Pursuant to RCW 7.24.060, issuance of a declaratory judgment is improper
23 because a declaratory judgment would not terminate the controversy.
24
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 10. This Court lacks jurisdiction to provide some or all relief requested at this
2 time because the City has not finalized the assessment roll pursuant to Chapter 35.44
3 RCW.
4 11. There has been no deprivation of substantive or procedural due process
5 under either the Washington or federal Constitutions.
6 12. The preliminary special assessments for the Waterfront LID were fairly
7 and properly estimated by external experts.
8 13. There has been no improper access to, or decisions by, City Hearing
9 Examiners Ryan P. Vancil and Barbara Dykes-Ehrlichman, or City Council members and
10 their staff.
11 14. The City’s district representative model and subsequent creation of the
12 Waterfront LID does not violate Article 1, Sections 1, 3, or 4 of the Washington State
13 Constitution.
14 VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
15 WHEREFORE, having fully answered all allegations contained in the Complaint,
16 the City requests the following relief:
17 a. Plaintiffs’ Complaint against the City be dismissed with prejudice;
18 b. Costs and attorneys’ fees, as allowed by law; and
19 c. Other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
20
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2019.
21
22
23
24
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 K&L GATES LLP
3 By s/Mark S. Filipini
Mark S Filipini, WSBA #32501
4 mark.filipini@klgates.com
s/Christina A. Elles
5 Christina A Elles, WSBA #51594
christina.elles@klgates.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant City of Seattle
7
8 PETER S. HOLMES
Seattle City Attorney
9
10
By s/Engel Lee
11 Engel Lee, WSBA #24448
engel.lee@seattle.gov
12 Assistant City Attorney
13 Seattle City Attorney’s Office

701 Fifth Ave., Suite 2050
14 Seattle, WA 98104-7097
Phone: (206) 684-8200
15
Attorney for Defendant City of Seattle
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington
3 that on May 2, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant’s
4 Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages, to be
5 served via U.S. Mail, First Class postage prepaid, and via the KCSC e-service
6 application, to plaintiffs’ counsel as follows:
7 Jesse O. Franklin IV
8 Garth A. Schlemlein
Schlemlein Fick & Scruggs, PLLC
9 66 S. Hanford Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98134
10
11 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2019

12
13 s/ Anita Spencer
Anita Spencer, Sr. Practice Assistant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TELEPHONE: +1 206 623 7580

Answer-Waterfont LID Lawsuit

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Answer-Waterfont LID Lawsuit

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 FILED HONORABLE KEN SCHUBERT

2019 MAY 02 03:23 PM

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

13 CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

2 The City admits that it created a Waterfront Local Improvement District

10 denies the remaining allegations in the Introduction paragraph of the Complaint.

11 II. Jurisdiction and Venue

14 allegations in Paragraph 2.1 of the Complaint.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

6 otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint.

20 denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint.

24 denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.6 of the Complaint.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

20 denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.15 of the Complaint.

23 allegations in Paragraph 4.15.1 of the Complaint.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

3 4.16 of the Complaint.

5 Waterfront LID formation is a “quasi-judicial process.” Plaintiffs’ allegation regarding

6 the consequences of a quasi-judicial process designation for City Council communications

8 knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny statements made by City Council members to

21 Paragraph 4.21 of the Complaint.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

2 to 2013, members of the City Council were elected on a citywide basis.

13 in Paragraph 4.27 of the Complaint.

15 4.29 Paragraph 4.29 describes hypothetical situations that require no response.

24 the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.32 of the Complaint.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

5 Paragraph 4.33 of the Complaint.

9 remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.35 of the Complaint.

11 information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in

12 Paragraph 4.36 of the Complaint, and accordingly, denies the same.

14 information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in

15 Paragraph 4.37 of the Complaint, and accordingly, denies the same.

19 5.1.1 Responding to Paragraph 5.1.1 of the Complaint, the City realleges

20 and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though

21 fully set forth herein.

22 5.1.2 Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions,

23 which do not require a response. To the extent a response is

24 required, the City admits that Article 1, Section 1 of the

25 Washington State Constitution states “governments derive their just

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO K&L GATES LLP

2 Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Complaint alleges any wrongdoing by the

3 City, the City denies Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Complaint.

4 5.1.3 Paragraph 5.1.3 describes hypothetical situations that require no

5 response. To the extent a response is required, the City denies the

6 allegations in Paragraph 5.1.3 of the Complaint.

7 5.1.4 Paragraph 5.1.4 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions

8 which do not require a response. To the extent a response is

9 required, the City denies any wrongdoing by the City and

10 accordingly denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.4 of the

13 5.1.6 Paragraph 5.1.6 of the Complaint consists of legal conclusions

14 which do not require a response. To the extent a response is

15 required, the City denies any wrongdoing by the City and

16 accordingly denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1.6 of the

20 5.1.9 Responding to Paragraph 5.1.9 of the Complaint, the City admits

21 that Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as described, but denies

22 any wrongdoing alleged in Paragraph 5.1.9 of the Complaint, and

23 therefore denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph

24 5.1.9 of the Complaint.