Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.10.21 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. October 21, 2019 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. 5 - 8 (a) Approval of Meeting Minutes To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated October 7, 2019. 9 - 11 (b) Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $5,478,105.43 ($3,849,175.86 in Check Nos. 231768-232070; $834,733.35 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 826289-826298, 826336-826340; $22,731.71 in Check Nos. 53016-53040; $768,415.65 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30139893-30140419; $3,048.86 in Electronic Transfer No. 631). To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non- criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $204,584.43 and, of that amount, authorize $115,633.25 to be turned over for collection. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 12 - 13 (a) Ecology's 2018 Perfect Compliance Award - Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 1 of 186 Regular Meeting October 21, 2019 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings. 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) General Fund Operating Statement 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: 14 - 49 (a) Ordinances - Federal Communication Commission 5G Preemption MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4462, amending PMC Section 15.10.050 "Determination by City;" and further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4463, amending Ordinance No. 4413; and amending PMC Section 15.10.025 "Supplemental Definitions" and providing for Corrections;" and further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4464, amending Ordinance No. 4415; and amending PMC Chapter 15.100 "Small Cell Tower Deployment Within the Public Right-of-Way;" and further, authorize publication summary only. Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4465, amending Ordinance No. 4416; and amending PMC Chapter 15.110 "Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of -Way;" and further, authorize publication by summary only. 50 - 119 (b) Resolution - Lewis Street Overpass Project BNSF Easment MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3916, authorizing the City Page 2 of 186 Regular Meeting October 21, 2019 Manager to sign the BNSF Easement and Permit Acquisition for the City of Pasco, Lewis Street Overpass Project. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 10. NEW BUSINESS: 120 - 140 (a) 2020 Ad Valorem Tax Levy 141 - 144 (b) Bid Award: Irrigation Pump Station Project MOTION: I move to award the PWRF Irrigation Pump Station project to Apollo, Inc. in the amount of $8,048,615.76, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the contract documents. 145 - 186 (c) Tourism Promotion Area 2020 Budget MOTION: I move to approve the 2020 Marketing Plan and Operating Budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of $1,614,181. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 13. ADJOURNMENT: (a) (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed Q Quasi-Judicial Matter MF# “Master File #....” (b) REMINDERS: • Monday, October 21, 6:00 PM: LEOFF Disability Board – City Hall Conference Room 1, Pasco City Hall (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Alt.) • Tuesday, October 22, 2:30 PM: Pasco Public Facilities District Board Special Meeting - Council Chambers, Pasco City Hall (MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE, Alt.) • Tuesday, October 22, 6:00 PM: Pasco Public Facilities District Board Community Open House - Community Room, Pasco Police Department (MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Rep.; Page 3 of 186 Regular Meeting October 21, 2019 COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE, Alt.) • Wednesday, October 23, 7:30 AM: Visit Tri-Cities Board Meeting – 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd., Kennewick (COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Alt.) • Monday, October 28, 4:00 PM: Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Advisory Committee Meeting – Ben Franklin Transit Main Conference Room (COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Rep.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability. (Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad.) Page 4 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 14, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Debby Barham, City Clerk Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes I. REFERENCE(S): Draft 10.07.19 Minutes II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated October 7, 2019. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 5 of 186 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 7, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney, Saul Martinez, David Milne, Pete Serrano, and Matt Watkins. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Eric Ferguson, City Attorney; Steve Worley, Public Works Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Darcy Buckley, Lead Accountant; Zach Ratkai, Administrative & Community Services Director; Ken Roske, Police Chief; and Debra Barham, City Clerk. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated September 16, 2019. Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $6,107,383.68 ($2,778,518.34 in Check Nos.231387-231767; $1,685,472.77 in Electronic Transfer Nos.825825-825843, 825863-825909, 825921-825930, 825937, 825939-826091, 826131-826136, 826153-826156; $116,920.45 in Check Nos. 52949-53015; $1,523,753.54 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30138799-30139892; $2,718.58 in Electronic Transfer No. 625). Planning Commission Appointments To appoint Abel Campos to Position No. 5 (term expiration date 2/2/25), and Jerry Cochran to Position No. 9 (term expiration date 2/2/21) to the Planning Commission. (RC) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Seconded by Mr. Serrano. Motion carried unanimous roll call vote. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Oath of Office - Police Chief The Honorable Senior Judge Edward F. Shea, Federal Judiciary U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, administered the Oath of Office to Police Chief Kenneth Roske. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Rock Broadway Jr. expressed concern regarding the Code Enforcement letter he received related to connecting electricity to his Recreational Vehicle at his home. Page 1 of 3 Page 6 of 186 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 7, 2019 Mayor Watkins encouraged Mr. Broadway to read the Code Enforcement letter to for instructions on how to appeal the code violation. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Milne commented on the TRIDEC meeting and Elected Leaders Reception he recently attended. Mr. Maloney commented on the Taco Sprint event held in Downtown Pasco on October 5, 2019 benefiting the Boys and Girls Club of Benton and Franklin Counties. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Ordinance - Design and Construction Standards and Specifications for Public Works Improvements MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4457, approving the Design and Construction Standards and Specifications for Public Works Improvements. Mr. Martinez second. Motion carried by unanimously. Rezone: Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) #1 MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4458, rezoning a parcel located at 11020 West Court Street from RS-20 (Residential Suburban) to RS-12 (Residential Suburban), and further, authorize publication by summary only. Ms. Barajas seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Story Family Five I (W Court St) Rezone MF #Z 2019-008) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4459, rezoning a parcel located at the convergence of West Court Street and Road 84 from RS-20 to R-S-1, and further, authorize publication by summary only. Ms. Barajas seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Story Family Five II (W Sylvester St) Rezone MF #Z 2019-010) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4461, rezoning a parcel located at the corner of West Sylvester Street and Road 56 from RS-20 to R-S-1, and further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Serrano seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Alley Vacation: Tri-Cities Community Health (MF# VAC2019-005) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3915, setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 4, 2019 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of the alley north of Tri -Cities Community Health. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: YESMAR Revision to C-3 Concomitant Agreement (MF# Z 2019-009) MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to concur with the recommendation of the Pasco Hearing Examiner and deny a request to amend the concomitant agreement attached to the C-3 zoning of a parcel at the northwest corner of Page 2 of 3 Page 7 of 186 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 7, 2019 Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 84. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Appointments MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to confirm reappointment of the following individuals to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee: • Hotel Representative: Monica Hammerberg (Hampton Inn) • User Representatives: Colin Hastings (Pasco Chamber of Commerce) and Hector Cruz (Visit Tri-Cities) • City Council: Matt Watkins and appointment of Hotel Representative Taran Patel (A1 Hospitality Group). Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1923 Grant Application MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the authorization letter for the grant application for E2SHB 1923 funding and submittal to the Washington State Department of Commerce. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Mayor Watkins provided a brief recap of the recent trip to Colima, Mexico; Councilmember Milne and City Manager Zabell also traveled with Mayor Watkins. Mr. Milne and Mr. Zabell also commented on the trip to Colima, Mexico. A more detailed report of the visit will be forthcoming. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 PM. PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of October, 2019. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra Barham, City Clerk Page 3 of 3 Page 8 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 17, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director Finance SUBJECT: Bills and Communications I. REFERENCE(S): Accounts Payable 10.21.19 Bad Debt Write-off/Collection II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve claims in the total amount of $5,478,105.43 ($3,849,175.86 in Check Nos. 231768-232070; $834,733.35 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 826289-826298, 826336- 826340; $22,731.71 in Check Nos. 53016-53040; $768,415.65 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30139893-30140419; $3,048.86 in Electronic Transfer No. 631). To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $204,584.43 and, of that amount, authorize $115,633.25 to be turned over for collection. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 9 of 186 REPORTING PERIOD: October 21, 2019 Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined Check Numbers 231768-232070 53016-53040 Total Check Amount $3,849,175.86 $22,731.71 Total Checks 3,871,907.57$ Electronic Transfer Numbers 826289-826298 30139893-30140419 631 826336-826340 Total EFT Amount $834,733.35 $768,415.65 $3,048.86 $0.00 Total EFTs 1,606,197.86$ Grand Total 5,478,105.43$ Councilmember 482,772.85 32,597.76 0.00 0.00 231.09 9,116.92 0.00 5,449.06 16,112.05 7,518.64 1,812.00 56,833.84 4,383.96 380.08 256,425.00 947.43 32,293.66 874.30 1,198.49 8,178.60 0.00 6,247.54 8,000.00 HOTEL/MOTEL EXCISE TAX 0.00 0.00 511,321.30 2,374,092.76 53,930.06 2,540.73 265,976.10 0.00 4,003.71 1,334,867.50 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:5,478,105.43$ The City Council October 3, - October 16, 2019 C I T Y O F P A S C O Council Meeting of: Accounts Payable Approved STREET OVERLAY City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim. Dave Zabell, City Manager Richa Sigdel, Finance Director We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 21st day of October, 2019 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERAL FUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN C.D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI-MODAL FACILITY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING LITTER ABATEMENT REVOLVING ABATEMENT TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING PARKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER LID GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UTILITY, WATER/SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE OLD FIRE OPEB FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING Page 10 of 186 BAD DEBT WRITE-OFF/COLLECTION September 1, - September 30, 2019 1. UTILITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write-off are under $20 with no current forwarding address, or are accounts in "occupant" status. Accounts submitted for collection exceed $20.00. 2. AMBULANCE - These are all delinquent accounts over 90 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct write off including DSHS and Medicare customers; the law requires that the City accept assignment in these cases. 3. COURT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - These are all delinquent non-criminal and criminal fines, and parking violations over 30 days past due. 4. CODE ENFORCEMENT – LIENS - These are Code Enforcement violation penalties which are either un-collectable or have been assigned for collections because the property owner has not complied or paid the fine. There are still liens in place on these amounts which will continue to be in effect until the property is brought into compliance and the debt associated with these liens are paid. 5. CEMETERY - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 6. GENERAL - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. 7. MISCELLANEOUS - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct Write-off Referred to Collection Total Write-off Utility Billing $ 0.00 80.15 80.15 Ambulance $ 88,951.18 11,381.20 100,332.38 Court A/R $ .00 82,942.75 82,942.75 Code Enforcement $ .00 18,980.00 18,980.00 Cemetery $ .00 .00 .00 General $ .00 50.00 50.00 Miscellaneous $ .00 2,199.15 2,199.15 TOTAL: $ 88,951.18 115,633.25 204,584.43 Page 11 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 10, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Ecology's 2018 Perfect Compliance Award - Wastewater Treatment Plant I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City of Pasco owned and operated Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has achieved State Washington the Award from Outstanding Plant an Performance Department of Ecology (Ecology) for 2018. The award recognizes top performing WWTPs having maintained perfect compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulating the plant. Of the 300+ WWTPs in Washington, about 1/3 achieve this distinction, this is the fifth consecutive award for the City of Pasco. Diana Washington, from Ecology, will be presenting an award to the City of Pasco recognizing the outstanding performance at the wastewater treatment plant. Diana is a Senior Water Quality Engineer with the Eastern Region of Ecology and serves as Pasco’s permit manager for our NPDES permit from the WWTP. V. DISCUSSION: Meeting the stringent requirement of the NPDES permit requires a highly qualified staff. It takes a knowledgeable, skilled, and dedicated team to handle the rigors of the City’s wastewater system. From management, to engineering, to collections and lift station crews, to the laboratory, to maintenance workers and plant operators. It takes all these groups being diligent in their work and functioning as a team. The Outstanding Performance Award recognizes the hard work that these crews have put in. The award also reflects the City Council's authorization of investment in the WWTP to provide for its renewal, modernization and capacity improvements, and the decisions Council is required to plant the assure rema rate compliance; of capable ins adjustments, Page 12 of 186 regulatory environment, long-range capital investment planning, financing and budget authorization. Keeping up with the operation of the wastewater plant in these conditions takes a wastewater team that has a strong operational understanding of the plant and it’s process control needs, meticulous attention to maintenance of equipment, and plant operational readiness. The wastewater crew takes pride in their work, has a strong sense of ownership of the facilit y, and strives everyday to meet the needs of the permit. It is through their dedication that they consistently reach the mark of this Outstanding Performance Award for five consecutive years. Page 13 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 16, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Ordinances - Federal Communication Commission 5G Preemption I. REFERENCE(S): • Proposed Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending PMC 15.10.050 "Determination by City;" • Proposed Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 4413; and Amending PMC 15.10.025 "Supplemental Definitions" and Providing for Corrections; • Proposed Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 4415; and Amending PMC Chapter 15.100 "Small Cell Tower Deployment Within the Public Right-of-Way;" and • Proposed Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 4416; and Amending PMC Chapter 15.110 "Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of -Way. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance ____, amending PMC Section 15.10.050 "Determination by City;" and further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance ____, amending Ordinance No. 4413; and amending PMC Section 15.10.025 "Supplemental Definitions" and providing for Corrections;" and further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance ____, amending Ordinance No. 4415; and amending PMC Chapter 15.100 "Small Cell Tower Deployment Within the Public Right-of-Way;" and further, authorize publication summary only. Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance ____, amending Ordinance No. 4416; and amending PMC Chapter 15.110 "Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of -Way;" and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Page 14 of 186 Unknown at present. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a declaratory ruling and order on September 27, 2018, that dramatically preempted local authority on the siting of cellular wireless technology in public rights of ways with an effective date of January 14, 2019. In summary - the new rule did the following: • Created new definitions for small wireless facilities (SWF) and related terms, establish time frames and responsibilities for determination of a "complete" application and shorten the time cities have to process applications for SWF to either 60 or 90 days, depending on whether they are being mounted on an existing or new structure; • Limited "use" fees for SWF to $270 per facility per year for recurring fees within rights of ways; limits non-recurring fees (5 additional SWF maximum) up to $500 per site including $100 per each additional SWF and establishes a limit of up to $1,000 for non-recurring fees for a new pole to support a SWF; • than other anything include that cities assessing from a Prohibited fees "reasonable approximation "of" reasonable costs"directly related to maintaining the rights-of-way and the small cell facility; and • Limited aesthetic review and requirements (including undergrounding and historic/environmental requirements) to those that are "reasonable" and comparable to requirements for other rights-of-way users, and published in advance. Although a Motion to Stay was submitted by the National League of Cities and many affected agencies and municipalities, the Stay was denied by the FCC. An appeal is expected to be heard by the federal court system this year - but currently the FCC ruling is law. As Council may recall, a focused and rapid process to place appropriate legislation in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) was accomplished in January this year so the City had customized regulations in place that - as much as possible - assured that the public's interest would be fairly served and protected in light of the FCC Ruling. Council adopted Ordinances 4412, 4413, 4414, 4415 and 4416, which made changes to various Chapters in the PMC and created new Chapters and new Sections as needed. All of the January 2019 Ordinances were intended to provide the Council options for a framework that would assure 5G technology is easily implemented; be readily available to the public as the market comes forward; provide for standards and Page 15 of 186 regulations to minimize the disruption to the public rights-of-way and maintain aesthetic, fiscal and safety benefits to the public. The proposed Ordinances attached as References above contain minor housekeeping updates to those earlier adopted January 2019 Ordinances. Council reviewed the proposed ordinances at the Workshop Meeting of October 14, 2019. V. DISCUSSION: Although there is a large quantity of material contained in the above proposed ordinances, the substance of the recommended revisions are minor and consist mostly of revising incorrect references to other PMC sections; eliminating redundant language and providing clarifying wording. Staff recommends Council approval of the Ordinances. Page 16 of 186 Ordinance Amending PMC 15.10.050 - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending PMC 15.10.050 “Determination by City” WHEREAS, the City has in its process of adopting regulations for Small Cell Tower Deployment within and outside of the public right-of-way affecting PMC 15.10.050 “Determination by City”; and WHEREAS, in order to make this section consistent with the other minor changes and revisions in the Small Cell Tower Deployment Ordinances, minor changes have been identified as necessary to clarify the application of this section. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 15.10.050 entitled “Determination by City” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 15.10.050 DETERMINATION BY CITY. A) Right-of-Way Use Permits. Within 90 ninety (90) days after receiving a complete application for a Right-of-Way Use Permit, the City Engineer or her or his designee shall issue a written determination granting or denying the permit application in whole or in part. If the application is denied, the written determination shall include the reason(s) for denial. The decision to grant or deny an application shall be based upon the following standards: 1) Whenever the applicant has received all requisite licenses, certificates, and authorizations from the Federal Communications Commission, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and any other Federal or State agency with jurisdiction over the activities proposed by the applicant; 2) The capacity of the public ways to accommodate the applicant’s proposed facilities; 3) The capacity of the public ways to accommodate additional utility, cable, open video, and telecommunications facilities if the permit is granted; 4) The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities, improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the permit is granted; 5) The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction with the public ways; 6) The service that applicant will provide to the community and region; Page 17 of 186 Ordinance Amending PMC 15.10.050 - 2 7) The effect, if any, on public health, safety and welfare if the permit is granted; 8) The availability of alternate routes and/or locations for the proposed facilities; 9) Applicable Federal and State communications laws, regulations and policies; 10) Such other factors as may demonstrate that the grant to use the public ways will serve the community interest; and 11) Such other and future factors as may be deemed appropriate by the City. B) Other Franchises. Other than Franchises for Small Cell Tower deployment as provided in PMC 15.40.050, all other telecommunication Franchises as provided in PMC 15.40.100, and all other franchises shall, within one hundred fifty (150) days of receiving a complete application under as required by Pasco Municipal Code PMC Section 15.10.040 for a Franchise, the City be reviewed by the City which shall issue a written determination granting or denying the application in whole or in part. Prior to granting or denying a Franchise, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing and make a decision upon the standards set forth in Pasco Municipal Code Section 15.10.050(A). Pursuant to RCW 35A.47.040, the City Council shall not approve any Franchise hereunder until the next regularly schedule Council meeting following the public hearing. If the application is denied, the written determination shall include the reason for denial. C) Facilities Leases. Recognizing that the City is under no obligation to grant a Facilities Lease for the use of City property, the City shall strive to consider and take action on applications for Facilities Leases within ninety (90) days after receiving a complete application for such a lease. When such action is taken, the City Engineer shall issue a written determination granting or denying the lease in whole or in part, applying the standards set forth below. If the lease application is denied, the written determination shall include the reason for denial, if any. 1) The capacity of the City property and public ways to accommodate the applicant’s proposed facilities. 2) The capacity of the City property and public ways to accommodate additional utility and telecommunications facilities if the lease is granted. 3) The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities, improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the lease is granted. 4) The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction upon City property and within the public ways. 5) The service that applicant will provide to the community and region. Page 18 of 186 Ordinance Amending PMC 15.10.050 - 3 6) The effect, if any, on public health, safety, and welfare if the lease requested is approved. 7) The availability of alternate routes and/or locations for the proposed facilities. 8) Whether the applicant is in compliance with applicable Federal and State telecommunications laws, regulations and policies, including, but not limited to, the registration requirements administered by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. 9) The potential for radio frequency and other interference with existing public and private telecommunications or other facilities located upon the City property. 10) The potential for radio frequency and other interference or impacts upon residential, commercial, and other uses located within the vicinity of the City property. 11) Such other factors as may demonstrate that the lease to use the City property will serve the community interest. (Ord. 3287 Sec. 1, 1998.) PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _______________, 2019. _____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Barham, City Clerk Eric Ferguson, City Attorney Page 19 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 4413; and Amending PMC 15.10.025 “Supplemental Definitions” Providing for Corrections WHEREAS, the City having adopted Ordinance No. 4413 to facilitate the implementation of broadband services within the City; and WHEREAS, the enactment of Ordinance No. 4413 was done in haste to meet the Federal Communications Declaratory Ruling and Order effective on January 14, 2019; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, corrections and other minor changes have been identified to clarify the application of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 15.10.025 entitled “Supplemental Definitions” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be amended and shall read as follows: 15.10.025 SUPPLEMENTAL DEFINITIONS. Supplemental to those definitions provided in PMC Section 15.10.020, and particularly in relation to those actions covered by PMC 15.100 “Small Cell Tower Deployment - - Right-of-Way”, and PMC 15.105 “Small Cell Tower Deployment - - Non Right-of-Way Location”, shall have the following meanings. A) “Administrative review” means ministerial review of an application by the City Manager, or his designee, relating to the review and issuance of a permit, including review by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director, and Informational Services Director to determine whether the issuance of a permit is in conformity with the applicable provisions of this Title. This review does not involve the exercise of discretion, nor is subject to a public hearing. B) “Antenna” means communications equipment that transmits and/or receives electromagnetic radio frequency signals used in the provision of wireless services or other wireless communications. This definition does not apply to broadcast antennas, antennas designed for amateur radio use, or satellite dishes for residential or household purposes. C) “Applicable codes” means uniform building, fire, safety, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical codes adopted by a recognized national code organization to the extent such codes have been adopted by the City or otherwise are applicable in the jurisdiction. D) “Applicant” means any person who submits an application. Page 20 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 2 E) “Application” means a written request submitted by an applicant to City for a permit to: 1) Locate or collocate, or to modify, a communications facility underground, on the surface, or on any existing support structure, pole or tower; or 2) Construct, replace, or modify a new support pole or tower or any other structure on which a communications facility will be collocated. F) “Authority” or “City” means the City of Pasco, Washington, and all departments, divisions, employees and agencies thereof. G) “Authority pole” or “City pole” means a pole owned, regulated, managed, or operated by or on behalf of the City, however, nothing construed can grant authority for the use or location of communication facilities upon a pole owned by the Franklin County Public Utility District. H) “Base station” or “Wireless facility” is defined as provided below (definition of “Wireless Facility”). I) “Collocate” means to install, mount, maintain, modify, operate and/or replace a communications facility on an existing support structure, pole, or tower or any other structure capable of supporting such communications facility. Collocation has a corresponding meaning. The term does not include the installation of a new utility pole, tower, or support structure in the public right-of-way. J) “Communications facility” means, collectively, the equipment at a fixed location or locations that enables communications between user equipment and a communications network, including: 1) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial, fiber-optic, or other cabling, power supply (including backup battery), and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration; and 2) All other equipment associated with any of the foregoing. Communications facility does not include the pole, tower, or support structure to which the equipment is attached. K) “Communications service provider” means a cable operator, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), a provider of information services, as defined in 47 U.S.C. §153(24); or a provider of telecommunications service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. §153(53); or provider of fixed wireless or other wireless services as defined in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(i). Page 21 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 3 L) “Day” means, for the purpose of calculation of the timing for review as provided in PMC 15.100.040, PMC 15.110.040, and 15.40.100, for consideration shall commence on the day following the receipt of the application or submission as evidenced by receipt stamp of the City. The review period day of calculation shall be based on work business days applicable both to the City and to the applicant, excluding legal holidays. M) “Decorative pole” means a City, or City-regulated pole that is specifically designed and placed for aesthetic purposes. N) “Deployables” means a portable, self-contained wireless facility that can be moved to a specified location or area and provides wireless services on a temporary or emergency basis such as a “cell on wheels” or “COW,” cell on light truck or “COLT,” tethered balloon, tethered drone or other unmanned device. O) “Director” means the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee. P) “Discretionary review” means review of an application by the City relating to the review and issuance of a permit that is other than an administrative review. Discretionary review shall be pursuant to PMC 25.86 “Special Permits.” Q) “Eligible facilities request” means a request for modifications of an existing tower or base station involving: colocation, removal, or replacement of transition equipment as set forth in 47 CFR §1.40001(b)(3), as may be amended from time to time. R) “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission of the United States. S) “Fee” means a one-time, nonrecurring charge, whether a fixed amount or cost- based amount based on time and expense. T) “Historic property” means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register maintained by the United States Secretary of the Interior (in accordance with Section VI.D.1.a.i-v of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement codified at 47 C.F.R., Part 1, Appendix C), or listed on the Pasco Register of Historical Places pursuant to PMC Title 27. U) “Joint location” means the location of small wireless facilities by multiple wireless providers upon or within a single pole, tower, or structure. V) “Law” means and Federal, State, or local law, statute, common law, code, rule, regulation, order, or ordinance. W) “Non-Authority pole” or “Non-City pole” means a pole not owned, regulated, managed, or operated by or on behalf of the City. X) “Ordinary maintenance and replacement” means: Page 22 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 4 1) With respect to a communications facility and/or the associated support structure, pole or tower, inspections, testing, repair, and modifications that maintain functional capacity, aesthetic and/or structural integrity, and; 2) With respect to a communications facility only, the replacement or upgrade of antennas and/or other components of the communications facility (specifically, such as a swap-out or addition of 5G antennas and radio equipment as required by the applicant), with antennas and/or other components substantially similar in color, aggregate size, and other aesthetics to that previously permitted by the City (and/or consistent with the same height and volume limits for wireless facilities under this Chapter), so long as the support structure, pole, or tower will structurally support, or prior to installation will be modified to support, the structural load. Modifications are limited by the structural load analysis supplied by the applicant to the City, and by the volume limits as provided in subsection AG” “Small wireless facility” below. Modifications beyond the foregoing must be requested in writing by the applicant and are subject to the Special Use Permit process required by the City. Y) “Permit” means a written authorization (in electronic or hard copy format) required by the City to perform an action or initiate, continue, or complete installation of a communications facility, or an associated support structure, pole, or tower. Z) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, association, trust, or other entity or organization, including the City. AA) “Pole” means a pole, such as a utility, lighting, traffic, or similar pole, not exceeding 50 feet in height above grade, made of wood, concrete, metal or other material located or to be located within the public right-of-way or a private easement. A pole does not include a tower or support structure. AB) “Pre-approved facility location” means an existing permitted site with capacity for the location of additional small cell facilities within or upon the structure. AC) “Private easement” means the area on, below, or above privately-owned property that has been designated for use as or is used for a utility purpose (such as for electric, cable or other utility purpose), and is typically recorded in the land records of the City Franklin County pursuant to a recorded plat, easement or right-of-way, and does not include any portion of a public right-of-way. AD) “Public Right-of-Way” or “Public ROW” means the area on, below, or above property that has been designated for use as or is used for a public roadway, highway, street, sidewalk or alley, however shall not include the Federal interstate highway (or other area not within the legal jurisdiction or maintenance responsibilities of the City), right-of-way or utility easements, or undeveloped rights-of-ways identified or scheduled for vacation by Ordinance or the current Comprehensive Plan. Page 23 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 5 AE) “Rate” means a recurring charge. AF) “Replace” or “replacement” means, in connection with an existing pole, support structure or tower, to replace (or the replacement of) the same with a new structure, similar in design, size and scale to the existing structure and in conformance with current City codes and regulations in order to address limitations of, or change requirements applicable to, the existing structure to structurally support collocation of a communications facility. In connection with replacement of a pole or tower to support collocation of a wireless facility, similarity in size and scale shall be evaluated consistent with 47 C.F.R. 1.40001 Subpart b(7). AG) “Small wireless facility” means a wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: 1) Each wireless provider’s antenna (including, without limitation, any strand-mounted antenna) could fit within an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume; and 2) All other wireless equipment associated with the facility is cumulatively no more than twenty-eight (28) cubic feet in volume. 3) The following types of associated, ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment, volume: (a) Electric meter. (b) Concealment elements; (c) Telecommunications demarcation box; (d) Grounding equipment; (e) Power transfer switch; (f) Cut-off switch; and (g) Vertical cable runs for connection of power and other services. AH) “State” means the State of Washington. AI) “Support Structure” means a building, a billboard, a water tank or any other structure to which a communications facility is or may be attached. Support structure does not include a pole or a tower. Page 24 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 6 AJ) “Target areas” means those specifically designated areas having historical value, or which there has been expended significant public investment to promote development, requiring the placement of all utilities underground and developed in aesthetic design, or where added new structures in the right-of-way can present significant risks to vehicles, safety, and pedestrian access requiring a consistent aesthetic structure and unique neighborhood characters for which specific design standards shall be required for a consistent and compatible contribution to the character of the neighborhood.of the City having unique neighborhood characteristics for which specific design standards shall be required for a consistent and compatible contribution to the character of the neighborhood. The target areas within the City shall constitute: 1) Downtown target area including that area west of west side of Tacoma Street; east of the west side of 10th Avenue; north of the south side of Columbia Street and south of the south side of Bonneville Street; 2) Court Street/Sylvester Streets west of the west side of 1st Avenue and east of the west side of Road 40; 3) 20th Avenue both side of Pearl Street and north of Lewis Street and also south of Lewis Street and north of “A” Street 4) 3rd Avenue both sides south of the roundabout and north of Columbia Street; 5) 4th Avenue both sides south of the SR 12 Overpass and north of “A” Street; 6) Lewis Street both sides west of 20th Avenue and east of the US 395 off- ramp; and 7) The I-182 corridor as defined in PMC 25.130.020. The target areas are specifically designated in PMC 15.100.070. AK) “Tolling” means the suspension of any required performance period, “shot clock” or time limitation required under this Title, or by agreement. AL) “Tower” means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting a wireless facility, such as a self-supporting monopole, a lattice, or a guyed tower. Tower, such as a self-supporting tower, a monopole, a lattice or a guyed tower. Tower also includes a structure designed to conceal, from the general public, the wireless facility. A tower does not include a pole or a support structure. AM) “Wireless facility” means a communications facility installed and/or opened by a wireless provider. The term does not include: Page 25 of 186 Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4413 and Amending PMC 15.10.025 Supplemental Definitions - 7 1) The support structure, tower or pole on, under, or within which the equipment is located or collocated; or 2) Coaxial, fiber-optic or other cabling that is between communication facilities or poles or that is otherwise not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna. A small wireless facility is one example of a wireless facility. AN) “Wireless infrastructure provider” means any person, including a person authorized to provide telecommunications service in the State, that builds or installs and/or operates wireless facilities or poles, towers or support structures on which wireless facilities are or are intended to be used for collocation, but that is not a wireless services provider. AO) “Wireless provider” means a wireless infrastructure provider or a wireless services provider. AP) “Wireless services” means personal wireless services as that term is defined in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(i), fixed wireless and other wireless services. AQ) “Wireless services provider” means a person who provides wireless services. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _______________, 2019. _____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Barham, City Clerk Eric Ferguson, City Attorney Page 26 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 4415; and Amending PMC Chapter 15.100 “Small Cell Tower Deployment Within the Public Right-of-Way” WHEREAS, the City having adopted Ordinance No. 4415 to facilitate the implementation of broadband services within the City; and WHEREAS, the enactment of Ordinance No. 4415 was done in haste to meet the Federal Communications Declaratory Ruling and Order effective on January 14, 2019; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, corrections and other minor changes have been identified to clarify the application of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 15.100 entitled “Small Cell Tower Deployment Within the Public Right-of-Way” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be amended and shall read as follows: Chapter 15.100 SMALL CELL TOWER DEPLOYMENT WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OFWAY Sections: 15.100.010 Purpose and Goal. 15.100.020 Permitted Communications Facility – Administrative Review. 15.100.030 Action on Administrative Review Applications. 15.100.040 Review Process. 15.100.050 Development Standards – Small Wireless Facilities. 15.100.060 Design Standards – Small Wireless Facilitates. 15.100.070 Target Areas. 15.100.080 Grant of Permit. 15.100.090 Exceptions. 15.100.100 Violations of this Chapter. 15.100.010 PURPOSE AND GOAL. A) The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a process for permitting the deployment of small cell and microcell technology within the City of Pasco. The goals of this Chapter are: Page 27 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 2 1) To provide a permitting system for service providers to acquire a Franchise to utilize the public right-or-way and a permit to deploy small cell technology within the City’s right-of-ways. 2) Establish target areas within which specific design standards are applicable to preserve the historic and aesthetic nature of the neighborhoods. 3) Establish design standards for facilities in both target areas and non-target areas within the City. 4) Secure for the City the opportunity for utilization of smart city initiative platforms to enhance municipal purposes. 5) Provide for an expedited process of review and permitting. B) Service providers who seek to utilize the public right-of-way for small cell deployment in order to provide wireless communication, data transmission, or other related services to the citizens of the City must have a valid Franchise as required by PMC 15.40 and a Small Cell Permit to deploy the technology. Entities with Franchises who wish to utilize small cell deployment to upgrade or expand their services shall utilize the process set forth in this Chapter and for implementing Small Cell Permits to deploy their technology and obtain design approval of specific installations. The Small Cell Permit process administers deployment under the Franchise. The Franchise application, and application for small cell permit, shall be processed concurrently, together with any required State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review concurrently as one Master Permit within the meaning of RCW 35.99.010(3) and RCW 35.99.030. 15.100.020 PERMITTED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. A) Permitted Uses. The following uses within the public right-of-way shall be a permitted use, subject to administrative review only and issuance of a Small Cell Permit. All such uses shall be in accordance with all other applicable revisions of this Chapter: 1) Collocation of a small wireless facility or a Collocation that qualifies as an eligible facilities request; 2) Modification of a pole, tower, or support structure, or replacement of a pole, for Collocation of a communications facility that qualifies as an eligible facilities request, or involves a small wireless facility that does not exceed the maximum size limitations as provided in Section 15.100.030100.050. All other modifications or replacements that exceed these limitations are subject to securing a Special Use Permit as required by PMC 25.20086. Page 28 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 3 3) Construction of a new pole or a monopole tower (but no other type of tower) to be used for Collocation of small wireless facilities that does not exceed the maximum height set forth in PMC 15.100.030100.050. 4) Construction of a communications facility, other than those set forth above, involving the installation of coaxial, fiber optic or other cabling, that is installed underground (direct, buried, or in conduit) or aboveground between two or more poles, or a pole and a tower and/or support structure, and related equipment and appurtenances. 5) Joint location within or upon an existing communications facility within the pre-approved, or previously approved facility location or target areas as defined by this Chapter and meeting the design specifications provided herein. B) Permit Required. No person shall place a facility described above in the public right-of-way without first filing an application for same and obtain a permit therefor, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter. C) Proprietary or Confidential Information of Applicant. The City shall make accepted applications publicly available to the extent required by RCW 42.56 (Public Records Act). Applicant shall designate portions of its application materials that it reasonably believes contains proprietary or confidential information as “proprietary” or “confidential” by clearly marking each portion of such materials accordingly. In the event of a public records request for such marked materials, the City shall provide the applicant notice to seek Court protection of such records pursuant to RCW 42.56.540. D) Administrative Review Application Requirements. The application shall be made by the applicable service provider or its duly authorized representative and shall contain the following: 1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address including emergency contact information for the applicant. 2) The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all consultants, if any, acting on behalf of the City with respect to the filing of the application. 3) Specific location information including GIS coordinates for all facilities, and a general description of the proposed work and the purposes and intent of the proposed facility. The scope and detail of such description shall be appropriate to the nature and character of the work to be performed, with special emphasis on those matters likely to be affected or impacted by the work performed. 4) Detailed construction drawings regarding the proposed facility. Page 29 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 4 5) Conduit and/or ground-mounted equipment necessary for and intended for use in the deployment shall also be specified regardless of whether the additional facilities are to be constructed by the applicant or leased from an infrastructure provider. 6) To the extent the proposed facility involves Collocation on a pole, tower, or support structure, a structural report performed by a duly licensed engineer evidencing that the pole, tower, or support structure will structurally support the Collocation (or that the pole, tower, or support structure will be modified to meet the structural requirements) in accordance with applicable codes. 7) For any aboveground facilities, visual depictions or representations, if not included in the construction drawings, and for new aboveground facilities before and after photo simulations. 8) If a preapproved facility location capable of joint location exists within, or within 300 feet of the specific location information identified in subsection 3) above, the applicant shall determine whether space is available for the applicant’s small wireless facility and provide demonstrated technical evidence justifying the applicant’s failure to utilize such site. E) Ordinary Maintenance and Replacement. An application shall not be required for ordinary maintenance and replacement, other than to the extent required for such work within the right-of-way, including but not limited to, street opening permit, right-of-way permit, electrical permit, and street closure permit. F) Information Updates. Any material change to information contained in an application shall be submitted in writing to the City within thirty (30) days after the change necessitating the amendment. G) Applicable Fees and Rates. All applications required by this Chapter shall be accompanied by the fees which shall include: 1) Application fee. 2) Make-ready fees and rates including annual right-of-way occupancy rate, 3) Annual attachment rate as defined under PMC 3.35.115 3.07.105. 15.100.030 ACTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPLICATIONS. A) Review of Small Wireless Facilities Applications for Administrative Review. The rights granted under a Franchise are implemented through the issuance of Small Cell Permits which, when in conformance with the applicable provisions of this Chapter, shall be issued on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions. The Franchise application may be accompanied by one or more applications for a Small Cell Permit to deploy small cells. An initial Franchise and all Page 30 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 5 related Small Cells Permit applications shall be processed concurrently as one Master Permit. See RCW 35.99.010(3) for the definition of “Master Permit.” 1) The Director may approve Small Cell Permit application submitted in compliance with this Chapter. The Director may approve batched applications of up to twenty (20) sites specified in one Small Cell Permit application for processing. The Director may approve up to ten (10) additional sites in order to consider small cell sites within one logical service area in one application. 2) Issuance of a Small Cell Permit to install a small cell deployment shall be contingent upon approval of a Franchise or the possession of a valid Franchise. 3) If more than one application for a Small Cell Permit is submitted by an applicant, they shall be considered in the order received. If multiple applications are submitted on the same date, the applicant shall indicate which application should be considered first. All Small Cell Permits which are submitted in conjunction with a Franchise application shall be considered as one Master Permit. (a) PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that an applicant with an existing Franchisee may, at the applicant’s sole discretion, elect to utilize the expedited review process set forth in PMC 15.100.040(E). (b) Any element of a deployment which qualifies as either an Eligible Facilities Request or a Collocation shall be specifically designated by the applicant and may be addressed separately by the Director in order to comply with the shot clocks established by Federal law. 4) The Director may approve, deny, or conditionally approve all or any portion of the sites proposed in the Small Cell Permit application. 5) Any application for a Franchise or Small Cell Permit which contains an element which is not exempt from SEPA review shall comply with the mitigation conditions of any applicable Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (MDNS) or shall simultaneously apply with the requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW and PMC Title 23. 6) RF Certification. The applicant shall submit a sworn affidavit signed by an RF Engineer with knowledge of the proposed project affirming that the small cell deployment will be compliant with all FCC and other governmental regulations in connection with human exposure to radio frequency emissions for every frequency at which the small cell facility will operate. If facilities necessary to the Small Cell Deployment are to be provided by another Franchisee, then the Small Cell Deployment are to be provided by another Franchises, then the Small Cell Deployment in the initial Franchise or in a subsequent Small Cell Permit shall be conditioned on an RF Certification showing the cumulative impact of the RF emissions on the entire installation. Page 31 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 6 7) Regulatory Authorization. Issuance of the Use Permit for the facilities shall also be contingent upon the applicant’s provision of proof of FCC and other regulatory approvals required to provide the service(s) or utilize the technologies sought to be installed. 15.100.040 REVIEW PROCESS. The following provisions relate to applications for a Franchise and/or Small Cell Permit for small cell deployments: A) Timing for Review. 1) Application. The Director shall within ten (10) days of receiving an application determine and notify the applicant whether the application is complete; or if an application is incomplete, the City must specifically identify the missing information, and may toll the approval as provided below. The applicant may resubmit the completed application within twenty (20) days without additional charge, and the subsequent review will be limited to the specifically identified missing information subsequently completed, except to the extent material changes to the proposed facility have been made by the applicant (other than those requested or required by the City). In which case, a new application and application fee must be submitted. 2) Completion for Review. Within sixty (60) days of the date of determination of the completed application, the Director shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an application for a Collocation, and ninety (90) days for an application for a new communications facility structure. 3) Tolling. Other than tolling the time for review resulting from an incomplete application, review may only be tolled by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City. 4) The Director must advise the applicant in writing of its final decision, and in the final decision document the basis for a denial, including specific code provisions and/or regulations on which the denial was based. The decision to deny the application shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, publicly released, and sent to the applicant. The written decision, supported by such substantial evidence, shall constitute final action by the City. The review period or “shot clock” shall run until the written decision, supported by substantial evidence, is released and sent to the applicant contemporaneously. The applicant may cure the deficiencies identified by the Director and resubmit the application within thirty (30) days of the denial without paying an additional application fee unless denial was issued due to noncompliance with design guidelines or other requirements under this Chapter (in which case, a new application fee must be paid). The Director shall approve or deny the revised application within thirty (30) days of receipt of the revised application. The subsequent review by the Director shall be limited to the deficiency cited in the original denial and any material changes to the application made to cure any identified deficiencies. Page 32 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 7 5) If the Director fails to act on an application within the review period provided in subsection 6) 2) above, the applicant shall immediately provide the Director written notice that the time period for acting has lapsed, and the Director then has twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice when within which to render it’s a written decision. Iif the Director fails to do so, the application is then deemed approved by passage of time and operation of law. The applicant shall provide notice to the Director at least seven (7) days prior to beginning construction or Collocation pursuant to a permit issued to a deemed approved application, and such notice shall not be construed as an additional opportunity for objection by the Director or other entity to the deployment. 6) Any party with standing aggrieved by decision of the Director, may appeal the decision pursuant to PMC Chapter 2.5019. B) Review of Facilities. 1) Review of the site locations proposed by the applicant shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter, State law, and Federal statutes and regulations, as well as applicable case law. Applicants for Franchises and the Small Cell Permits (Master Permits) which implement the Franchise shall be treated in a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory manner with other service providers utilizing supporting infrastructure which is functionally equivalent, that is, service providers whose facilities are similarly situated in terms of structure, placement or cumulative impacts. Franchise and Small Cell Permit review under this Chapter shall neither prohibit nor have the effect of prohibiting the ability of an applicant to provide telecommunications services. 2) Review of eligible facilities requests. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Chapter, the City shall approve within sixty (60) days of the determination of a completed application and may not deny applications for eligible facilities requests according to the procedures established under 47 CFR 1.40001(c). C) Underground Utility Requirements. Compliance with nondiscriminatory undergrounding requirements that prohibit electric, telecommunications, and cable providers from installation a of vertical or pole structures in the public right-of-way without prior discretionary review and approval in areas zoned for single-family residential and downtown commercial shall be required, provided, however, such requirement shall not prohibit the replacement of existing structures. Horizontal runs shall be placed underground in all areas where electric, telecommunications, and cable lines are underground, unless otherwise approved by the Director, or designee, in connection with temporary installations. The above requirements are supplementary to those requirements for undergrounding as provided in Chapter 15.70. D) Sufficient Available Right-of-Way. The City shall have the power to establish reasonable limitations on the placement of new or additional facilities within specific congested segments of the public right-of-way if there is insufficient space to accommodate all of the requests of applicants to safely and efficiently occupy the right-of-way. The City shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing users and potential users of the public right-of- way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public’s need for Page 33 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 8 the particular utility or other service, the width and physical condition of the public right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the public right-of-way, and future plans for public improvements (including right-of-way widening), and development projects which have been determined to be in the public’s interest. E) Expedited Review. An applicant that has an existing Franchise, or a pending Franchise application electing to seek expedited review for the location of one or more small wireless facilities on a previously approved communications facility having the capacity to house joint location of multiple wireless providers meeting the development standards provided in PMC 15.100.050 and PMC 15.100.060, and provided the RF certification and the regulatory authorization as required by PMC 15.100.030(6) and PMC 15.100.030(7) shall be granted a small cell permit within thirty (30) days of a completed application and proof of compliance with the requirements above. 15.100.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. A) Maximum Size of Permitted Use. Small wireless facilities and new, modified, or replacement poles, towers, and support structures (subject to the further limitation for replacement of support structure as defined in PMC 15.10.025(AD)) to be used for Collocation of small wireless facilities may be placed in the public right-of-way as a permitted use in accordance with Section 15.100.020 subject to the following requirements: 1) Each new, modified, or replaced pole, tower, or support structure installed in the public right-of-way shall not: (a) Exceed five (5) feet above the tallest existing pole, tower, or support structure (not exceeding fifty (50) feet) as of the effective date of this Chapter, and located within five hundred (500) feet of the new proposed pole, support structure. (b) Exceed ten (10) feet on any utility distribution pole where required by the electrical utility separation requirements; or (c) Exceed fifty (50) feet above ground level, whichever is greater. (d) Be no closer than three hundred (300) feet from an existing communications facility within any residential zone, target area, or location where, due to the nature and character of the neighborhood, such saturation would be incompatible with nearby land uses; impact traffic safety, and other uses of the right-of-way; and be not unreasonably burdensome to the applicant.. B) Minor Deviations. 1) The Director may authorize minor deviations in the Small Cell Permit from the dimensional design and concealment technologies referenced in the Franchise or design standard. Page 34 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 9 2) A deviation in height of the pole up to ten (10) feet above the height of the existing pole, by the Franchise may be permitted. 3) Deviations in the dimensions or volume of small cell facilities which do not exceed the cumulative total provided by the definition of a small cell facility in RCW 80.36.375 may be considered a minor deviation when an applicant replaces components of an existing, approved small cell facility. Similarly, the addition of antennae on a pole, not to exceed a cumulative total of six (6) cubic feet shall be considered a minor deviation. Provided, however, that in each instance the new or revised facilities shall not defeat the concealment features set by the City’s generally applicable pole design standard adopted pursuant to the Franchise. 4) Small Cell Permits to install facilities seeking approval of minor deviations shall be processed within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and or final approval of a Franchise, whichever occurs last. 5) The decision of the Director to approve a Small Cell Permit with a minor deviation, if any, shall be final. C) Significant Deviations. Any request for significant deviations from the approved small cell facilities design designated in the Franchise, Small Cell Permit or City’s design standards shall be considered under the provisions of PMC 25.20086 “Special Permits”, and if applicable, pursuant to the timeliness timelines established by Chapter 15.100. An applicant seeking approval of a new pole or a replacement pole in a restricted zone or undergrounded areas, shall be subject to the same review process pursuant to Chapter 25.20086 PMC. D) Subject to the City’s rights to additional ducts or conduits provided by RCW 35.99.070, leasing of excess space in ducts, conduits, and on a pole is a matter between interested parties (subject to any applicable pole attachment regulations and any other applicable statutory, regulatory or contractual obligations); however, lessees of such physical facilities must still comply with the terms of this Chapter, unless otherwise expressly exempted by the City. E) Discretionary Review Requirements. Unless an applicant seeks to install a communication facility that conforms to the specific uses, size, height, and separation limitations as set forth above, or involves ordinary maintenance, repairs and replacement, the application shall be subject to the provisions of PMC 25.20086 “Special Permits”, and subject to the City’s design standards and regulations applicable to the construction or placement of such facilities. F) Additional Right-of-Way Franchise Standards. In addition to the standards provided in this Chapter, any permit issued under this Chapter shall be subject to the requirements of PMC 15.70. G) Limitations on Location. No small wireless facility may be located upon any traffic control device, traffic signal poles, poles supporting traffic or pedestrian flashers, beacons Page 35 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 10 or signs, or any wireless facility which would impede the visibility of a traffic control device or create a hazard to other users of the right-of-way. 15.100.060 DESIGN STANDARDS – SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. In addition to those standards defined by PMC 15.10.025(AG) and PMC 15.100.050, small wireless facility structures, communications facilities and wireless facilities shall conform to the design standards for small cell tower deployment adopted by the City and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A. 15.100.070 TARGET AREAS: The following areas are designated as “target areas” where the City has identified the areas having historic value, expended significant public investment to promote development, requiring the placement of all utilities underground and developed in aesthetic design, or where adding new structures in the right-of-way can present significant risk to vehicle, safety and pedestrian access requiring a consistent aesthetic structure. The target areas are designated as follows: A) Downtown Target Area: including that area west of the west side of Tacoma Street; east of the west side of 10th Avenue; north of the south side of Columbia Street and south of the south side of Bonneville Street; B) Court Street/Sylvester Streets Target Area: including from west of the west side of 1st Avenue and to east of the west side of Road 40; C) 20th Avenue Target Area: including both sides of Pearl Street and north of Lewis Street and also south of Lewis Street and north of “A” Street; D) 3rd Avenue Target Area: including both sides from south of the roundabout and to the north of Columbia Street; E) 4th Avenue Target Area: including both sides from south of the SR 12 Overpass and to the north of “A” Street; F) Lewis Street Target Area: Including both sides from west of 20th Avenue and to east of the US 395 off-ramp; and G) The I-182 Corridor Target Area: As defined in PMC 25.130.020. 15.100.080 GRANT OF PERMIT. A) Authority Granted - - No Property Right or Other Interest Created. A permit from the City authorizes an applicant to undertake only certain activities in accordance with this Chapter, and does not create a public right or grant authority to the applicant to impinge on the rights of others who may already have an interest in the public right-of-way. Page 36 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment - 11 B) Duration. No permit for construction issued under this Chapter shall be valid for a period longer than twelve (12) months unless construction has been commenced within twelve (12) months of issuance of the permit, and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. C) No Master Permit, Franchise, or Small Cell Permit may be assigned, transferred, sublet or licensed for the use of any other entity without the prior written consent of the City which will not be unreasonably denied, conditioned, or withheld subject to those transfers as may be permitted by PMC 15.70.320. 15.100.090 EXCEPTIONS. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, the following facilities are not subject to the provisions of this Chapter: A) Antennas used by residential households solely for broadcast radio and television receptions. B) Satellite antennas used solely for residential or household purposes. C) Television and AM/FM radio broadcast towers and associated facilities. 15.100.100 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. Violations of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction which each day of violation constituting a separate offense. In addition to the remedy provided herein, the City may seek all remedies available in law or equity including injunctive relief and damages, including reasonable attorney fees and costs. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _______________, 2019. _____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Barham, City Clerk Eric Ferguson, City Attorney Page 37 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Ordinance No. 4416; and Amending PMC Chapter 15.110 “Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way” WHEREAS, the City having adopted Ordinance No. 4416 to facilitate the implementation of broadband services within the City; and WHEREAS, the enactment of Ordinance No. 4416 was done in haste to meet the Federal Communications Declaratory Ruling and Order effective on January 14, 2019; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, corrections and other minor changes have been identified to clarify the application of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 15.110 entitled “Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be amended and shall read as follows: Chapter 15.110 SMALL CELL TOWER DEPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OFWAY Sections: 15.110.010 Purpose and Goal. 15.110.020 Permitted Communication Facility – Administrative Review. 15.110.030 Action on Administrative Review Applications. 15.110.040 Review Process. 15.110.050 Development Standards – Small Wireless Facilities. 15.110.060 Design Standards – Small Wireless Facilities. 15.110.070 Temporary and Emergency Installations. 15.110.080 “Dig Once” Requirements. 15.110.090 Duration. 15.110.100 Exceptions 15.110.110 Violations of this Chapter. 15.110.010 PURPOSE AND GOAL. A) The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a process for permitting the deployment of small cell and microcell technology within the City of Pasco upon that property and structures that are not located within the public right-of-way by: Page 38 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 2 1) Providing a permitting system for service providers to acquire a permit to deploy small cell technology upon private properties and structures. 2) Establish design standards for facilities for independent, Collocation, and joint location upon private properties and structures. 3) Establish development standards to provide compatibility for the surrounding uses. 4) Provide for an expedited process of review and permitting. 15.110.020 PERMITTED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY – ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. A) Permit Required. No person shall place a communications facility or small wireless facility, or perform any construction activities without first filing an application for and obtaining a small cell permit. B) Permitted Use. The following uses outside the public right-of-way , on privately- owned property (including within any utility easement, to the extent expressly set forth below), shall be a permitted use, subject to administrative review only and issuance of a permit, and subject to applicant’s legal right to install and operate the communications facility on the property or structure: 1) Collocation of a small wireless facility or a Collocation that qualifies as an eligible facilities request on privately-owned property including, without limitation, within a utility easement, consistent with the height and other limitations set forth in PMC 15.100.050. 2) Modification of a pole, tower or support structure, or replacement of a pole or tower, for Collocation of a communications facility on privately-owned property (including within a utility easement that contains other existing poles) that qualifies as an eligible facilities request or involves a small wireless facility that does not exceed the limitations set forth in PMC 15.100.050. All other such modifications or replacements are subject to the provisions of PMC 25.20086 “Special Permits”, and subject to the City’s design standards and regulations applicable to the construction or placement of such facilities. 3) Construction of a new pole (or monopole tower), within a utility easement on which there currently exist adjacent poles that are unavailable for joint or Collocation due to structural, accessibility or other reasons, to be used for joint or Collocation of a small wireless facility (that does not exceed the maximum height set forth in PMC 15.100.050), and the new pole (or monopole tower) is similar in design, size and scale to those of the existing, adjacent poles. Page 39 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 3 4) Construction of a communications facility, other than those set forth above in this section, involving the installation of coaxial, fiber-optic or other cabling, that is installed underground (direct buried or in conduit) or, aboveground between two or more polies or a pole and a tower and/or support structure, and related equipment and appurtenances. 5) All other types of communications facility under PMC Title 15, for which installation is permitted with administrative review alone. 6) Joint location of the facilityfacilities within, or upon an existing communications facility within the pre-approved, or previously approved facility location, and meeting the design specifications provided herein. C) Proprietary or Confidential Information of Applicant. The City shall make accepted applications publicly available to the extent required by RCW 42.56 (Public Records Act). City Applicant shall designate portions of its application materials that it reasonably believes contains proprietary or confidential information as “proprietary” or “confidential” by clearly marking each portion of such materials accordingly. In the event of a public records request for such marked materials, the City shall provide the applicant notice to seek Court protection of such records pursuant to RCW 42.56.540. D) Administrative Review Application Requirements. The application shall be made by the applicable service provider or its duly authorized representative and shall contain the following: 1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address including emergency contact information for the applicant. 2) The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all consultants, if any, acting on behalf of the City Applicant with respect to the filing of the application. 3) Specific location information including GIS coordinates for all facilities, and a general description of the proposed work and the purposes and intent of the proposed facility. The scope and detail of such description shall be appropriate to the nature and character of the work to be performed, with special emphasis on those matters likely to be affected or impacted by the work performed. 4) Detailed construction drawings regarding the proposed facility. 5) Conduit and/or ground-mounted equipment necessary for and intended for use in the deployment shall also be specified regardless of whether the additional facilities are to be constructed by the applicant or leased from an infrastructure provider. Page 40 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 4 6) To the extent the proposed facility involves Collocation on a pole, tower, or support structure, a structural report performed by a duly licensed engineer evidencing that the pole, tower, or support structure will structurally support the Collocation (or that the pole, tower, or support structure will be modified to meet the structural requirements) in accordance with applicable codes. 7) For any aboveground facilities, visual depictions or representations, if not included in the construction drawings, and for new aboveground facilities before and after photo simulations. 8) If a preapproved facility for joint location exists within, or within 300 feet of the specific location information identified in subsection 3) above, whether space is available for the applicant’s small wireless facility and demonstrated technical evidence justifying the applicant’s failure to utilize such site. E) Ordinary Maintenance and Replacement. An application shall not be required for ordinary maintenance, repair, and replacement, other than to the extent required for applicable permits required under this Code. F) Information Updates. Any material change to information contained in an application shall be submitted in writing to the City within thirty (30) days after the change necessitating the amendment. G) Applicable Fees. Unless otherwise provided by applicable laws, all applications for a facility shall be accompanied by the fees as provided in PMC 3.3507.105. 15.110.030 ACTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPLICATIONS. A) Review of Applications for Administrative Review. The City shall review the application in light of its conformity with the applicable provisions of this Chapter, and shall issue a permit on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions subject to the following review: 1) The Director may approve Small Cell Permit application submitted in compliance with this Chapter. The Director may approve batched applications of up to twenty (20) sites specified in one Small Cell Permit application for processing. The Director may approve up to ten (10) additional sites in order to consider small cell sites within one logical service area in one application. 2) If more than one application for a Small Cell Permit is submitted by an applicant, they shall be considered in the order received. If multiple applications are submitted on the same date, the applicant shall indicate which application should be considered first. Any element of a deployment which qualifies as either an Eligible Facilities Request or a Collocation shall be specifically designated by the applicant and may be addressed separately by the Director in order to comply with the shot clocks established by Federal law. Page 41 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 5 3) The Director may approve, deny, or conditionally approve all or any portion of the sites proposed in the Small Cell Permit application. 4) Any application for a Small Cell Permit which contains an element which is not exempt from SEPA review shall comply with the mitigation conditions of any applicable Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (MDNS) or shall simultaneously apply with the requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW and PMC Title 23. 5) RF Certification. The applicant shall submit a sworn affidavit signed by an RF Engineer with knowledge of the proposed project affirming that the small cell deployment will be compliant with all FCC and other governmental regulations in connection with human exposure to radio frequency emissions for every frequency at which the small cell facility will operate. If facilities necessary to the Small Cell Deployment are to be provided by another Franchisee, then the Small Cell Deployment are to be provided by another Franchises, then the Small Cell Deployment in the initial Franchise or in a subsequent Small Cell Permit shall be conditioned on an RF Certification showing the cumulative impact of the RF emissions on the entire installation. 6) Regulatory Authorization. Issuance of the Use Permit for the facilities shall also be contingent upon the applicant’s provision of proof of FCC and other regulatory approvals required to provide the service(s) or utilize the technologies sought to be installed. 15.110.040 REVIEW PROCESS. The following provisions relate to applications for a Small Cell Permit for non-public right-of-way location: A) Timing for Review. 1) Application. The Director shall within ten (10) days of receiving an application determine and notify the applicant whether the application is complete; or if an application is incomplete, the City must specifically identify the missing information, and may toll the approval as provided below. The applicant may resubmit the completed application within twenty (20) days without additional charge, and the subsequent review will be limited to the specifically identified missing information subsequently completed, except to the extent material changes to the proposed facility have been made by the applicant (other than those requested or required by the City). In which case, a new application and application fee must be submitted. 2) Completion for Review. Within sixty (60) days of the date of determination of the completed application, the Director shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny an application for joint or Collocation, and ninety (90) days for an application for a new communications facility structure. Page 42 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 6 3) Tolling. Other than tolling the time for review resulting from an incomplete application, review may only be tolled by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City. 4) The Director must advise the applicant in writing of its final decision, and in the final decision document the basis for a denial, including specific code provisions and/or regulations on which the denial was based. The decision to deny the application shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, publicly released, and sent to the applicant. The written decision, supported by such substantial evidence, shall constitute final action by the City. The review period or “shot clock” shall run until the written decision, supported by substantial evidence, is released and sent to the applicant contemporaneously. The applicant may cure the deficiencies identified by the Director and resubmit the application within thirty (30) days of the denial without paying an additional application fee unless denial was issued due to noncompliance with design guidelines or other requirements under this Chapter (in which case, a new application fee must be paid). The Director shall approve or deny the revised application within thirty (30) days of receipt of the revised application. The subsequent review by the Director shall be limited to the deficiency cited in the original denial and any material changes to the application made to cure any identified deficiencies. 5) If the Director fails to act on an application within the review period provided in subsection 4) above, the applicant shall immediately provide the Director written notice that the time period for acting has lapsed, and the Director then has twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice when within which to render it’s a written decision. If the Director fails to do so, the application is then deemed approved by passage of time and operation of law. The applicant shall provide notice to the Director at least seven (7) days prior to beginning construction or Collocation pursuant to a permit issued to a deemed approved application, and such notice shall not be construed as an additional opportunity for objection by the Director or other entity to the deployment. 6) Any party with standing aggrieved by decision of the Director, may appeal the decision pursuant to PMC Chapter 2.25019. B) Review of Facilities. 1) Review of the site locations proposed by the applicant shall be governed by the provisions of this Chapter, State law, and Federal statutes and regulations, as well as applicable case law. Applicants for Small Cell Permits shall be treated in a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory manner with other service providers utilizing supporting infrastructure which is functionally equivalent, that is, service providers whose facilities are similarly situated in terms of structure, placement or cumulative impacts. Small Cell Permit review under this Chapter shall neither prohibit nor have the effect of prohibiting the ability of an applicant to provide telecommunications services. Page 43 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 7 2) Review of eligible facilities requests. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Chapter, the City shall approve within sixty (60) days of the determination of a completed application and may not deny applications for eligible facilities requests according to the procedures established under 47 CFR 1.40001(c). C) Underground Utility Requirements. Compliance with nondiscriminatory undergrounding requirements that prohibit electric, telecommunications, and cable providers from installation a of vertical or pole structures in the public right-of-way without prior discretionary review and approval in areas zoned for single-family residential and downtown commercial, provided, however, such requirement shall not prohibit the replacement of existing structures. Horizontal runs shall be placed underground in all areas where electric, telecommunications, and cable lines are underground, unless otherwise approved by the Director, or designee, in connection with temporary installations. The above requirements are supplementary to those requirements for undergrounding as provided in Chapter 15.70. D) Expedited Review. An applicant that has an existing Franchise, or a pending Franchise application electing to seek expedited review for the location of one or more small wireless facility on a previously approved communications facility having the joint location capacity to house multiple wireless providers meeting the development standards provided in PMC 15.100.050 and PMC 15.100.060, and provided the RF certification and the regulatory authorization as required by PMC 15.100.030(6) and PMC 15.100.030(7) shall be granted a small cell permit within thirty (30) days of a completed application and proof of compliance with the requirements above. 15.110.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. A) Maximum Size of Permitted Use. Small wireless facilities and new, modified, or replacement poles, towers, and support structures (subject to the further limitation for replacement of support structures as defined in PMC 15.10.025(AD)) to be used for Collocation of small wireless facilities may be placed upon private properties or structures as a permitted use in accordance with Section 15.110.020 subject to the following requirements: 1) Each new, modified, or replaced pole, tower, or support structure installed shall not: (a) Exceed five (5) feet above the tallest existing structure, pole, tower, or support structure (not exceeding fifty (50) feet) as of the effective date of this Chapter, and located within five hundred (500) feet of the new proposed pole, support structure. (b) Exceed ten (10) feet aboveon any utility distribution pole where required by the electrical utility separation requirements. (c) Exceed the maximum height limitation as permitted in the zone, or zones, on which the facility is to be located. Page 44 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 8 (d) Be no closer than three hundred (300) feet from an existing communications facility within any residential zone, target area, or location where, due to the nature and character of the neighborhood, such saturation would be incompatible with nearby land uses; impact traffic safety and other uses of the right-of-way; and not be unreasonably burdensome to the applicant. B) Minor Deviations. 1) The Director may authorize minor deviations in the Small Cell Permit from the dimensional design and concealment technologies referenced in the Franchise or design standard. 2) A deviation in height of the pole up to ten (10) above the height of the existing pole may be permitted. 3) Deviations in the dimensions or volume of small cell facilities which do not exceed the cumulative total provided by the definition of a small cell facility in RCW 80.36.375 may be considered a minor deviation when an applicant replaces components of an existing, approved small cell facility. Similarly, the addition of antennae on a pole, not to exceed a cumulative total of six (6) cubic feet shall be considered a minor deviation. Provided, however, that in each instance the new or revised facilities shall not defeat the concealment features set by the City’s generally applicable pole design standards. 4) Small Cell Permits seeking to install facilities with the approval of minor deviations shall be processed within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application and or final approval of a permit, whichever occurs last. 5) The decision of the Director to approve a Small Cell Permit with a minor deviation, if any, shall be final. C) Significant Deviations. Any request for significant deviations from the approved small cell facilities design, Small Cell Permit or City’s design standards shall be considered under the provisions of PMC 25.86 “Special Permits”, and if applicable, pursuant to the timelinesstimelines established by Chapter 15.100. An applicant seeking approval of a new pole or a replacement pole in a restricted zone Target Area or undergrounded areas, shall be subject to the same review process pursuant to Chapter 25.20086 PMC. D) Subject to the City’s rights to additional ducts or conduits provided by RCW 35.99.070, leasing of excess space in ducts, conduits, and on a pole is a matter between interested parties (subject to any applicable pole attachment regulations and any other applicable statutory, regulatory or contractual obligations); however, lessees of such physical facilities must still comply with the terms of this Chapter, unless otherwise expressly exempted by the City. Page 45 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 9 E) Discretionary Review Requirements. Unless an applicant seeks to install a communication facility that conforms to the specific uses, size, height, and separation limitations as set forth above, or involves ordinary maintenance, repairs and replacement, the application shall be subject to the provisions of PMC 25.20086 “Special Permits”, and subject to the City’s design standards and regulations applicable to the construction or placement of such facilities. F) Site Development Requirements. The site, consistent with the zoning requirements of the district in which the facility shall be located, shall include: 1) Default setbacks. (a) Ground-mounted equipment for wireless facilities, including any buildings, cabins or shelters, shall be used only to house equipment and other supplies in support of the operation of the wireless facility or tower. Any equipment not used in direct support of such operation shall not be stored on the site. (b) Ground-mounted equipment for wireless facilities must conform to the setback standards of the applicable zone. In the situation of stacked equipment buildings, additional screening/landscaping measures may be required by the City 2) Lighting and marking. (a) Towers shall not be lighted or marked unless required by, and compatible with requirements of, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (b) In all districts, appropriate security lighting meeting generally applicable standards for security lighting for the district shall be permitted. 3) Fencing/landscaping/signage. (a) Fencing. (1) Towers shall be secured and enclosed within a fence not less than six (6) feet in height or as permitted within the zoning designation for the site. (2) The City may waive the requirements of subsection (1) above if it is deemed that a fence is not appropriate or needed at the proposed location. Page 46 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 10 (3) For locations where decorative fencing is otherwise required, the City may allow chain link fence if decorative fence poses a risk for security or vandalism. (4) For towers located within a floodplain where the ground equipment will be elevated on platforms, the City may waive any decorative fencing requirements in favor of chain link. (b) Landscaping. In all zoning districts, the City shall have the authority to impose reasonable landscaping requirements surrounding any ground- moundedmounted equipment. Required landscaping shall be consistent with surrounding vegetation and shall be maintained by the facility owner. The City may choose to not require landscaping for sites that are not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent property or in instances where in the judgment of the City, landscaping is not appropriate or necessary. (c) Signage. Signs located upon or about the wireless facility shall be limited to ownership and contact information, FCC antenna registration number (if required), and any other information as required by government regulation. Commercial advertising is strictly prohibited. (d) Other decision factors. (1) Collocation analysis. (2) Alternative site analysis. 15.110.060 DESIGN STANDARDS – SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES. In addition to those standards defined by PMC 15.10.025(AG) and PMC 15.100.050, small wireless facility structures, communications facilities and wireless facilities shall conform to the design standards for small cell tower deployment adopted by the City and incorporated here by this reference as Exhibit A. 15.110.070 TEMPORARY AND EMERGENCY INSTALLATIONS. A) A deployable may be operated for a period of not more than one hundred twenty (120 days), when operated in connection with a special event after issuance by the City of a permit based upon a discretionary review only. Deployables operated in conjunction with a special event shall meet reasonable setbacks determined by the Director; shall be subject to receipt of a valid building permit, if applicable; shall meet uniform fire code requirements; and shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of the event. B) Deployables may be operated in any zoning district after a declaration of an emergency or a disaster by an authority executive. Page 47 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 11 15.110.080 “DIG ONCE” REQUIREMENTS. Requirements for New Developments. A) For all new commercial, residential, mixed use and other significant planned developments within the City, the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department may require that the project developer make sufficient accommodation for the deployment of a small wireless facility within the development as a condition of permitting, and coordinate with providers who operate, or have applied for, facilities in the City either through the Community Development and the Public Works Departments or ensure the public right-of- way and any planned utility easements are adequate to accommodate the deployment of both aboveground and underground communications facilities. Specifically, planned utility easements should allow for an adequate number of huts, utility poles and other structures, as well as below-ground conduit, to adequately serve current and anticipated communications facilities. Access to easements should be provided to providers on a nondiscriminatory basis and at a reasonable cost, or pursuant to applicable laws. B) For instances where a project developer chooses to install conduit for below- ground communications facilities, the developer should be encouraged or required to provide, on a nondiscriminatory basis and reasonable cost access to the planned utility easement areas. In addition, access to easements and trenches should be made available to providers as early in the development cycle as possible to minimize installation costs and disruption to residents, businesses, institutions and governments, and their property. The project developer should be encouraged to promote coordination among providers and other utilities so that each can benefit from the other’s construction activities to allow timely and efficient access. C) The City may request additional conduits and ducts to accommodate future development as provided by RCW 35.99.070. 15.110.090 DURATION. No permit for construction issued under this Chapter shall be valid for a period longer than twelve (12) months unless construction has been commenced within twelve (12) months of issuance of the permit, and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 15.110.100 EXCEPTIONS. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, the following facilities are not subject to the provisions of this Chapter: A) Antennas used by residential households solely for broadcast radio and television receptions. B) Satellite antennas used solely for residential or household purposes. C) Television and AM/FM radio broadcast towers and associated facilities. 15.110.110 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. Violations of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction which each day of violation constituting a separate offense. Page 48 of 186 Ordinance – Small Cell Tower Deployment Outside the Public Right-of-Way - 12 In addition to the remedy provided herein, the City may seek all remedies available in law or equity including injunctive relief and damages, including reasonable attorney fees and costs. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _______________, 2019. _____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Barham, City Clerk Eric Ferguson, City Attorney Page 49 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 15, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution - Lewis Street Overpass Project BNSF Easment I. REFERENCE(S): Resolution Appraisal Review Appraisal II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _______, authorizing the City Manager to sign the BNSF Easement and Permit Acquisition for the City of Pasco, Lewis Street Overpass Project. III. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure is within the 2019/2020 budget appropriation for this capital project. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Construction and future operation of Lewis Street Overpass project requires the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements relative to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Rail-yard. The necessary easements are as follows: • Permanent aerial bridge inspection and maintenance easement; • Permanent pier easement (No.1, No.2, and No.3); • Permanent access easement/bridge access and inspection for 15’ (No.1 and No.2); • Temporary construction easement; and • Temporary track crossing easement permit. The total easement area is approximately 182,072.64 square feet. Based on a thorough Page 50 of 186 field inspection of the property and the neighborhood, and the comparables utilized in this analysis by the appraiser, a “fair market” value of $300,610 is proposed for the partial acquisition of both permanent and temporary easement rights as described above. V. DISCUSSION: The amount of this acquisition slightly exceeds City Managers delegated authority. However, as the procurement of this easement is critical to the project schedule, the City Manager approved authorized the consultant to move forward with a formal offer to the railroad. Council's approval of the resolution will provide the City Manager with authority to complete the purchase of these necessary easements and permits. Page 51 of 186 Resolution - 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, authorizing the City Manager to sign the Washington State Department of Transportation Appraisal Review for the City of Pasco, Lewis Street Overpass Project. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has undertaken a public works project described as the Lewis Street Overpass Project, City Project No. 13007, in downtown Pasco; and WHEREAS, a necessary portion of the Project is acquiring Right-of-Way easements from the adjacent property owner(s); and WHEREAS, prior to acquiring Right-of-Way easements necessary for the Project from the adjacent property owners, an appraisal and appraisal review is necessary to determine the estimated fair market value of said easements; and WHEREAS, the necessary appraisal and appraisal reviews were completed by Lingeman Valuation and Consulting and Brian Vincent, respectively; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has executed concurrence and authorization of just compensation based on the appraisal review with the appraisal attached, and authorized further action to proceed with the acquisition of the designated easement property; and WHEREAS, the City Council ratifies the City’s execution of said concurrency and authorization of appraisal review and appraisal. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council ratifies the action of the City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, or his or her designee, in executing the Washington State Department of Transportation Concurrence and Authorization of the Appraisal Review and Appraisal for the Lewis Street Overpass Project and authorizes proceeding with acquisition of the designated easements, permits, and to take all necessary steps required to complete this transaction. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, at its regular meeting dated this ____ day of October, 2019. ___________________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Eric W. Ferguson City Clerk City Attorney Page 52 of 186 Lingeman Valuation & Consulting PO Box 823267 Vancouver, WA 98682 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, IFAS Page 1 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 September 24, 2019 Kristin Butterfield Right of Way Consultant Universal Field Services, Inc. RE: City of Pasco (Lewis Street Overpass Project) BNSF Parcel – (Rail Corridor) Lewis Street, Pasco, WA Dear Ms. Butterfield: As noted within the attached Appraisal for the City of Pasco (Lewis Street Overpass) Project located in Pasco, WA. It has been prepared in conformance with the most current requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Agency Guideline Manual (LAG), and the appropriate State and Federal laws, regulations, policies and procedures applicable to the appraisal of property in Washington State. I have conducted a field inspection of the subject properties, their neighborhoods and the comparables utilized in this analysis. I have independently verified information pertaining to the subject and the market data utilized in this appraisal report. Based upon my findings the fair market value considering the interests being acquired a total of $300,610 for the proposed right of way acquisitions described herein is concluded. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or require additional clarification, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Certified General Appraiser State of Washington 110196 WSDOT Approved Appraiser/Review Appraiser Page 53 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 2 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 WSDOT NARRATIVE APPRAISAL REPORT Parcel No.: BNSF Rail Corridor Owner: BNSF Railway Company Washington State Federal Aid No.: STPUS HLP #3530(006) Department of Transportation Project: City of Pasco Lewis Street Overpass Project R/W Plan Title: Lewis St. Overpass City of Pasco, WA Plan Sheet: 1 & 3 of 4 Plan Approval Date: 07/17/2019 Date of Last Map Revision: N/A CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISER I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  the statements of fact contained in this appraisal are true and correct;  the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conclusions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions;  I have performed no (or the specified) services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment;  I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this appraisal, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;  my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event;  my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this appraisal has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions;  I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. I have made a personal inspection of the comparable sales contained in the report addenda;  I have afforded the owner or a designated representative of the property that is the subject of this appraisal the opportunity to accompany me on the inspection of the property;  no one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. (If there are exceptions, the name of each individual providing significant professional assistance must be stated);  I have disregarded any increase in Fair Market Value caused by the proposed public improvement or its likelihood prior to the date of valuation. I have disregarded any decrease in Fair Market Value caused by the proposed public improvement or its likelihood prior to the date of valuation, except physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner;  this appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate State and Federal laws and requirements, and complies with the contract between the agency and the appraiser. The property has been appraised for its fair market value as though owned in fee simple, or as encumbered only by the existing easements as described in the title report dated N/A. I made a personal inspection from adjacent or public ROW of the property that is the subject of this report on July 19, 2019. The Date of Value for the property that is the subject of this appraisal is July 19, 2019. Per the FAIR MARKET VALUE definition herein, the value conclusions for the property that is the subject of this appraisal are on a cash basis and are: FAIR MARKET VALUE BEFORE ACQUISITION: $ N/A FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION: $ N/A DIFFERENCE: $ 300,610 Date of Assignment or Contract: 05-20-2019 Name: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Date Signed: ____09-23-2019___ Signature:______________________________________________ Washington State - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Certification Number: 1101965 DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Headquarters Service Center Date Stamp Region Date Stamp Page 54 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 3 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Assignment Scope of Work The client of this report is City of Pasco and Universal Field Services, Inc. City of Pasco and Universal Field Services, Inc. requires that in addition to compliance with USPAP this report must also meet the WSDOT Standards as set forth in the WSDOT R/W Manual Chapter 4, the WSDOT Appraisal Report Guide, and Federal Regulations as defined in 49 CFR part 24. In the event of conflict or dispute in determining correct appraisal procedures that are not addressed in the standards noted above the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) will be the determining authority. Under 49 CFR, WSDOT is required to take an active role in developing the Scope of Work. However it is the ultimate responsibility of the appraiser to develop a complete Scope of Work and produce a credible appraisal report. The appraisers SCOPE of WORK is included in Section 5 of the report. The report must adhere to the WSDOT and Federal Standards as described above and the specific task assignment for this parcel. The task assignment for this report must be included in the report or addendum. Eminent Domain Appraisal Information and Definitions The intended use of this appraisal is to provide information to the client, City of Pasco and Universal Field Services, Inc., as a basis for acquiring the portion of the subject property needed for the proposed project. Unless stated otherwise in the report, the property rights appraised constitute the fee simple interest. “Fair Market Value” is defined as: the amount in cash which a well-informed buyer, willing but not obliged to buy the property, would pay, and which a well-informed seller, willing but not obligated to sell it would accept, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied (Washington Pattern Instruction 150.08). The intended user of this report is primarily City of Pasco and Universal Field Services, Inc. Additionally, its funding partners may review the appraisal as part of their oversight activities. A copy of this report may be provided to the property owner as a courtesy and part of the good faith bargaining process. However, this does not imply that the property owner has standing as an intended user and is not authorized to publish or use the report for any other purpose. Public Law 91-646 (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970) and Washington State RCW 8.26.180 both require that the owner or owner’s representative be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the inspection of the property. “If the appraiser is advised that the property owner is represented by legal counsel, all owner contact and property inspections must be arranged through the owner’s attorney, unless the attorney specifically authorizes the appraiser to make direct contact with the owner”. In condemnation, the larger parcel is the portion of a property that has unity of ownership, contiguity, and unity of use, the three conditions that establish the larger parcel for consideration of severance damages. This is also known as the “parent parcel”. Extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions include but may not be limited to the following: State and Federal standards require the appraiser to disregard any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the subject caused by the project. The appraiser may cite the Jurisdictional Exception Rule to comply with this requirement which is found in RCW 8.26.180 and WAC 468-100-102 (2). The after value is based on the assumption that the project has been constructed as proposed in the Right-of-Way plans as of the date of value. Page 55 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 4 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 The subject has been appraised as cleaned. However, apparent environmental hazards or contamination observed or discovered during the appraisal process must be noted in the report. Marketing and exposure time - Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) require the appraiser to determine and define the marketing and exposure time for the subject parcel. The appraiser has cited the Jurisdictional Exception Rule to comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) which does not require these determinations. Page 56 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 5 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The property description supplied to the appraiser is assumed to be correct; 2. No survey of the property has been made or reviewed by the appraiser, and no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Illustrative material, including maps and plot plans, utilized in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Property dimensions and sizes are considered to be approximate; 3. No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature affecting title to the property, nor is any opinion of title rendered. Property titles are assumed to be good and merchantable unless otherwise stated; 4. Information furnished by others is believed to be true, correct, and reliable. However, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed by the appraiser; 5. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless so specified within the report. The property is assumed to be under responsible, financially sound ownership and competent management; 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render the property more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies which may be required to discover them; 7. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. However, the appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value conclusions in this report are predicated on the assumption that there are no such materials on or in the property that would cause a loss of value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for the expertise required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field if desired. The analysis and value conclusions in this report are null and void should any hazardous material be discovered; 8. Unless otherwise stated in this report, no environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this report. The appraiser reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any opinions of value based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research or investigation; 9. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is specified, defined, and considered in this report; 10. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless nonconformity has been specified, defined and considered in this report; 11. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or federal governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate is based; 12. The appraiser will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this report, unless arrangements have previously been made; 13. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the client without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event, only with properly written qualification and only in its entirety; 14. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or any other media without written consent and approval of the appraiser. Nor shall the appraiser, client, firm or professional organization of which the appraiser is a member be identified without the written consent of the appraiser; 15. The liability of the appraiser, employees, and subcontractors is limited to the client only. There is no accountability, obligation or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraiser is in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiencies of the property; 16. It is assumed that the public project which is the object of this report will be constructed in the manner proposed on the most recent right-of-way plan prior to the appraisal date and in the foreseeable future; 17. Acceptance and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing assumptions and limiting conditions. Page 57 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 6 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 SUBJECT PLOT PLAN Before Area: RR Corridor After Area: RR Corridor Fee Acquisition: N/A Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement Acquisition: ±38,260.49 SF Permanent 15’ Access Easement bridge Maintenance and Inspection Acquisition: ±7,570.86 SF Pier Easement : ±4,680 SF Temporary Construction Easement : ±124,187.79 SF Temporary Track Crossing Easement/Permit : ±7,373.50 SF Limited Access/Access Notes: N/A Page 58 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 7 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Aerial Photograph Page 59 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 8 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Subject Photographs Date of Photos: 07/19/2019 Photographer: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Facing west across BNSF from the north side of Lewis Street adjacent to the existing undercrossing. Facing northwest across BNSF from the north side of Lewis Street adjacent to the existing undercrossing. Page 60 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 9 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Subject Photographs Date of Photos: 07/19/2019 Photographer: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Facing west across BNSF from the north side of Lewis Street adjacent to the existing undercrossing. Facing northwest across BNSF from the north side of Lewis Street adjacent to the existing undercrossing. Page 61 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 10 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 NARRATIVE APPRAISAL REPORT OWNER: BNSF Railway Company LOCATION OF SUBJECT: The subject is located immediately north and above Lewis Street, Pasco, WA. SUBJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION (abbreviated): City of Pasco, Franklin County, WA. DELINEATION OF TITLE/SALES HISTORY (5 years): The property is owned by BNSF Railway Company. The property is not currently listed and there have been no sales in the past five years. THE APPRAISAL PROBLEM AND APPRAISER’S SCOPE OF WORK: Identification of the Appraisal Problem: The purpose of this report is to estimate the fair market value of the subject property identified above within the acquisition areas, as noted in this appraisal report. The City of Pasco is acquiring the following for a railroad overpass; Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass. Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width. Appraiser’s Scope of Work: The scope of work is an outline of the steps the appraiser took to arrive at an estimation of the fair market value for the subject. The City of Pasco is acquiring the following for a railroad overpass; Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. Page 62 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 11 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass. Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width. The appraiser was provided with and relied upon a legal description and project right of way plans for sizes of the acquisition as well as easement encumbrances. A diligent search for comparable data was conducted and comparable information was obtained from both public and private sources. Attempts were made to contact the buyers or sellers or other knowledgeable third parties to verify that the transactions were at arm’s length, cash equivalent and market reflective. A reconciliation of all data considered was then completed, resulting in an estimate of land value in both the Before and After Condition, as set forth herein. The site improvements within the acquisition area were derived from a contractor estimate (provided herein) or from direct market information confirmed by the appraiser within the subject’s market area. The appraiser has estimated a value for the land and any improvements within the acquisition areas. It is also necessary to estimate if any damages or special benefits that may occur to the property as a result of the acquisition. No consideration was giving to the remaining improvements and structures on the property, since they were remote to the acquisition and unaffected by the above describe acquisition. The value difference between the Before and After Condition was categorized as either an acquisition or a damage (or benefit) to the remainder. The report includes all data and information needed to lead the reader to a similar value conclusion. The appraisal report was then delivered to the client, which constitutes the completion of the assignment. Competence of Appraiser – The appraiser has both the knowledge and experience required to competently perform this appraisal. Property Rights Appraised – The property rights appraised constitute the fee simple interest. The property rights are also subject to the four powers of government (i.e. taxation, escheat, police power, and eminent domain). Inspection - The subject parcel inspection was made on July 18, 2019 from outside the fencing surrounding the yard accompanied by Kris Butterfield, UFS, un-accompanied by the ownership or their representative. An email exchange on Monday July 15, 2019 between the appraiser and Mr. Tim Sharman, owner representative, Jones Lang LaSalle, declined to accompany the appraiser but gave permission for a un-accompanied inspection. (See addenda) PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED AND EFFECTS OF ACQUISITION/PROJECT: (Include description of area being acquired in fee, in easement and access if applicable) Lewis Street provides an important east-west connection across the BNSF freight yard via a narrow two-lane underpass built in 1937. The concrete structure is severely deteriorated, obsolete, and unsafe for both vehicles and pedestrians. The project will relocate a portion of Lewis Street northerly of the existing underpass, construct a new overpass between 2nd Avenue and Oregon Avenue. A new overpass will replace the existing underpass which is deteriorating. The project will provide greatly improved pedestrian facilities to access the downtown core from the residential areas, and offer substantial track expansion opportunities for BNSF Railway. The project as a whole requires the full acquisition of numerous private properties, several business relocations, partial fee acquisitions, temporary construction easements and permanent and temporary Page 63 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 12 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 easements from BNSF. In 2010 and 2011, the City of Pasco acquired 25 private parcels in their entirety, converted 5 City owned parcels to public right-of-way, acquired linear strips of right-of-way and easements from 2 additional properties, and completed the relocations. Because federal funds were involved in the demolition of the improvements, the acquisitions and relocations were done in accordance state and federal regulations including the Uniform Act and were reviewed by WSDOT. No easements were acquired from BNSF Railway at that time. The acquisition from the subject parcel is as follows; Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass. Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width. SITE IMPROVEMENTS: There are active railroad tracks and associated improvements within the acquisition area. Note the City of Pasco will work with BNSF and their contractor regarding any site improvements. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY including but not limited to: Neighborhood: The project area is located just east of the City of Pasco, Washington’s downtown core, and includes several blocks on both sides of the BNSF Railway freight yard, through which numerous tracks run north-south. The project neighborhood is between N 2nd Avenue east to S Oregon Avenue, and between West Clark Street and East Clark Street south to West Columbia Street and East Columbia Street. The neighborhood experiences good linkage and is in close proximity to SR 12. It is served by police and fire protection and public transportation. It is served by public utilities including power, telephone, cable television, water and sewer. The immediate neighborhood is characterized by industrial development with residential and retail development to the west and the east. A. Present use: As mentioned previously, the subject is an active railroad corridor owned by BNSF Railway Company. No consideration was given to any improvements and/or structures on the property, i.e. rails, ties and compacted ballast; Note the City of Pasco will work with BNSF and their contractor regarding any site improvements. B. Accessibility and Road Frontages: The subject is a section of railway located in Pasco Washington. Page 64 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 13 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 C. Land Contour and Elevations: The topography is relatively level. D. Land Area: The subject is a 173,994.10 square foot section of railway located in Pasco Washington. E. Land Shape: The subject is a section of railway, long and narrow, located in Pasco Washington see project map. F. Utilities: Public utilities are available. G. Present Zoning: The adjacent parcels are zoned Light Industrial (I-1) by the City of Pasco. According to the City of Pasco ordinance, this zoning is established to preserve areas for industrial and related uses of such a nature that they do not create serious problems of compatibility with other kinds of land uses. Uses permitted in this district should not generate noise levels, light, odor or fumes that would constitute a nuisance or hazard. Permissible use include; all uses permitted in the C-3 district; Building material storage yard; Trucking, express and storage yards; Contractor’s plant or storage yards; Laboratories, experimental; Automotive assembly and repair; Kennels; Creamery, bottling, ice manufacture and cold storage plant; Blacksmith, welding or other metal shops, excluding punch presses over 20 tons rated capacity, drop hammers, and the like; The manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging of cosmetics, pharmacology and food products, except fish and meat products, and the reducing and refining of fats and oils; and Printing plants. As stated above the subject is zoned Light Industrial (I-1) which allows a variety of light industrial development and uses. Within the City of Pasco zoning ordinance the I-1 zoning allows all permissible development and use allowed in C-1, C-2 and C-3 as well. All uses permitted in the C-3 district are permissible in this zoning, which include; all uses permitted in the C- 1/C-2 districts; Service stations; Laundry; Trucking, express and storage yards; Wholesale business; Heavy machinery sales and service; Warehouse; Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials; Automobile sales and service; Mobile home and trailer sales and service; Lumber sales business; and Veterinarian clinics for household pets (including indoor boarding facilities). In addition, the C-1 and C-2 as stated above include, C-1 - all uses permitted in the O office district; Automobile detail shops and automobile rental or leasing; Banks; Dancing schools; Hotels and motels; Printing shops; Restaurants; Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business; Stores and shops for repair and similar services such as: (a) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises; (b) Barbershops and beauty shops; (c) Catering establishments; (d) Garage and filling stations, provided: (i) All outdoor repair work is “minor” as defined by PMC 25.15.150; and (ii) The garage or filling station conducting outdoor repair work was in existence and conducting outdoor auto repair prior to September 1, 2013; and (iii) The number of vehicles undergoing outdoor repair does not exceed the capacity of the existing outdoor repair facilities, or no more than two vehicles if there are no existing outdoor repair facilities; and (iv) The number of vehicles stored outdoors and awaiting customer pick-up cannot exceed the capacity of the indoor and outdoor auto repair facilities; and further provided, that all vehicles must be kept on the business premises; and (v) Pumps, lubrication or other devices are located at least 15 feet from any street property line; and (vi) All stored automobile parts and dismantled or inoperable automobiles are contained within the building, except material on outdoor display racks.; (e) Laundromats and dry-cleaning establishments employing not more than five persons; (f) Locksmith shops; (g) Offices; (h) Membership clubs; (i) Photo shops; (j) Shoe repair shops; (k) Upholstery shops.; Sign shops, commercial (no outdoor storage of materials); Theaters; Veterinarian clinics for household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment facilities); C-2 - Antique stores as defined by PMC 25.15.030; Artist and office supplies; Bakeries; Page 65 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 14 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Banks and financial institutions; Barber and beauty shops; Bookstores, except adult bookstores; Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused materials only); Consignment stores (PMC 25.165.160) and thrift shops (PMC 25.165.170); Crafts, stationery and gift shops; Department and drug stores; Electronic sales and repair stores with at least 50 percent of the stock and floor space devoted to the sale of new equipment; Fresh and frozen meats, including seafood; Florists; Furniture and home appliance stores; Galleries for art and restored or refinished antiques; Grocery stores with less than 10,500 square feet of gross floor area; Hardware and home improvement stores; Import shops; Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work; Offices for medical and professional services; Restaurants, sandwich shops, cafeterias and delicatessens; Sporting goods; Tailoring and seamstress shops; Theaters for movies and performances, except adult theaters; Public markets for fresh produce and craft work; Parking lots; Micro-breweries, micro- wineries; Research, development and assembly facilities for component devices and equipment of an electrical, electronic or electromagnetic nature; and Home brewing and/or winemaking equipment sales.; Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principal building, are all above the ground floor of said building. O - Administrative and professional offices, such as lawyers, engineers, real estate, accountants and insurance offices; Medical and dental offices; Museums and art galleries; Governmental offices, excluding police and fire stations; and Funeral homes. As stated above there is a very broad scope of allowable uses for the subject property due to the City’s overlapping development code as it relates to the subject parcel. Thus, I have taken into consideration both Light Industrial and Commercial oriented uses reflected in a mixed comparable sales data set. Larger Parcel Discussion: The “Larger Parcel Theory” for eminent domain appraisal purposes is that portion of property which has unity or control of title, unity of use, and contiguity, with the unity of use test referring to unity of highest and best use, not simply existing use. The subject ownership consists of a continuous railway corridor extending many miles north and south. For the purpose of this appraisal the larger parcel will be the collective acquisition of (173,994.10 square feet) as follows; Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass. Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width. H. Highest and Best Use If Vacant: The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition, a publication of the Appraisal Institute, defines highest and best use for a property as: Page 66 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 15 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value". Summarizing the Above:  The use must be within a realm of probability, i.e., it must be likely, not speculative or conjectural.  The use must be legal.  The use must be physically possible.  The use must be financially feasible.  The use must be such as to return to land the highest net return (maximally productive). Data collected concerning the surrounding neighborhood and the subject property is analyzed to provide the evidence upon which the highest and best use conclusion is based. The highest and best use analysis allows an appraiser to gradually narrow the field of possible uses by testing it with the criteria above. The highest and best use of a property is the foundation for the selection and analysis of market data, and is the basis upon which a property is valued. Legally Permissible Legal considerations which impact the subject include governmental restrictions such as zoning and comprehensive plan classifications. As stated previously, the subject ownership consists of a continuous railway corridor extending many miles north and south. For the purpose of this appraisal the larger parcel will be the approximately collective acquisition area being acquired from subject. The subject is located in Pasco, WA and is zoned Light Industrial (I-1) which allows a variety of light industrial development and uses. Within the City of Pasco zoning ordinance the I-1 zoning allows all permissible development and use allowed in C-1, C-2 and C-3 as well, see previous zoning discussion of details regarding allowed uses. Physically Possible The subject's location and physical characteristics are analyzed in this section. Location The subject is located in an urban location within the city limits of Pasco and there is significant light industrial and commercial development surrounded by supporting residential community near the center of the city. Physical Characteristics Size, shape, soils, and topography affect the uses to which a site may be developed. The utility of a parcel may depend on its frontage and depth. Irregularly shaped parcels may cost more to develop and, when developed, may have less utility than a rectangular parcel. The rail corridor is approximately 450 feet wide in the location of the proposed acquisition. Because of its long and narrow shape and lack of adequate legal access the subject is not capable of supporting independent development. Financially Feasible & Maximally Productive This analysis involves consideration of those uses determined to be legally permissible and physically possible in order to establish those uses which are financially feasible. There is currently some demand for Light Industrial/Commercial land; demand is favorable in the foreseeable future due to a population growth Page 67 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 16 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 and job creation/lower unemployment rates. Because the subject is not physically capable of supporting independent development, the maximally productive use is to assemble the subject with adjacent properties. Conclusion Accordingly the highest and best use of the subject as a whole, in it’s as-is condition, is for assemblage with adjacent light industrial zoned properties. I. Improvements: As mentioned previously, the subject is an active railroad corridor owned by BNSF Railway Company with railroad tracks and associated improvements within the acquisition area. Note the City of Pasco will work with BNSF and their contractor regarding any site improvements. Therefore they were not valued in this appraisal. J. Specialty Items: None. K. Real Estate Taxes: N/A, Railroad corridor. L. Assessments Current and Pending: None. M. Existing Lease or Rental Data: Not applicable. N. Highest and Best Use of the Whole Property as Improved: The subject is an active railroad corridor owned by BNSF Railway Company with railroad tracks and associated improvements within the acquisition area. Note the City of Pasco will work with BNSF and their contractor regarding any site improvements. Therefore they were not valued in this appraisal. Approaches to Value There are three commonly accepted approaches to valuing real estate. They include the Cost Approach, Income Approach, and the Direct Sales Comparison Approach. The most meaningful method or approach to value for vacant land is the Sales Comparison Approach; this approach will be further explained below. The Cost Approach is utilized in estimating the replacement cost new of the improvements being appraised, deducting the amount of depreciation from all sources, and adding to that the market-derived estimate of land value. The Cost Approach tends to be most meaningful and applicable when a property is new or has suffered minimal depreciation and is less meaningful as a property grows older and suffers from the various forms of depreciation. With older properties, accurately estimating depreciation becomes more difficult. Considering the subject improvements are not valued in this appraisal, a cost approach has not been developed for the subject property. The Income Approach provides an indicator of a property’s value by capitalizing its net income. Fundamental in the Income Approach is the principal of anticipation, which holds that value created from expectation of future benefits, the anticipated income stream. This approach is most applicable in the valuation of income producing properties or properties that have income producing potential. An appraiser can apply this approach to value to vacant land if there is adequate ground lease and capitalization rate data. This approach will be utilized in establishing a reasonable rent for the land in the proposed temporary construction easement. Page 68 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 17 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 The Direct Sales Comparison Approach estimates the value of a given property by comparing it to like properties that have recently sold, are pending or are currently listed for sale. Like the Cost Approach the Direct Sales Comparison Approach is largely based on the principle of substitution. This principle states that no one would pay more for a property than the price of other properties available in the market with similar characteristics. Comparative analysis of properties and transactions are made, that focus on similarities and differences that affect value; these may include physical characteristics, market conditions (date of sale), and financial considerations. In conclusion, the review and re-examination of the appraisal process is conducted with consideration of the quality and reasonableness of the data utilized in each applicable approach. The result of the final analysis is reconciled into the value conclusion/estimate of value. The value will be estimated using the “Across The Fence” (ATF) variation of the sales comparison approach. This methodology determines the subject’s market value based upon its contributory value as part of the larger parcels. This is done based on sales of properties comparable to the abutting land. In order to apply the ATF valuation methodology, the appraiser will analyze the typical site/section applicable. That typical site/section generates a “comparison tract,” which is the typical tract analyzed. The value of the subject is estimated based on the value of a typical comparison. In the case of this acquisition there is only one site, the subject collective acquisition as follows; Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass. Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width. Sales Comparison Approach- The Sales Comparison Approach provides a comparison of how much it would cost to purchase a like property in today's market. This approach takes into consideration differences in location, quality, and functional characteristics of similar properties as they differ from the Subject. By analyzing market-derived data the purchase price per square foot, indications of value based on direct market sales analysis can be estimated. The sales comparison approach was used to estimate land value. There were a limited number of sales of commercial sites in the immediate area, and it was necessary to extend the search into competing neighborhoods. A summary of the sales considered most similar to the subject are listed below; Page 69 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 18 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Location Zoning Date Sale Price Price/SF Size (SF) 1 SWC W. Sylvester St & N. Tacoma Street Pasco, WA I-1 5/29/2018 $20,000 $2.05 9,750 2 SWC E. A St & S. Mrytle Ave Pasco, WA I-1 5/23/2019 $60,000 $6.40 9,375 3 NEC S. 2nd Avenue & W. Columbia Street Pasco, WA C-3 3/18/2019 $189,000 $4.50 42,000 4 E of 2202 W Sylvester St Pasco, WA C-1 10/4/2018 $300,000 $4.15 72,310 5 NWC E. B Street & S. Myrtle Avenue Pasco, WA I-1 8/7/2018 $62,500 $3.33 18,750 6 N Commercial Avenue Pasco, WA I-1 5/2/2018 $185,000 $2.01 91,911 Comparative Analyses: Sale One ($2.05/SF) ̶ is the May 2018 sale of a 9,750 square foot parcel at the southwest corner of W. Sylvester Street and N. Tacoma Street in Pasco. The parcel is served by public utilities. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. It is zoned Light Industrial (I-1), which is similar to the subject with average access from both W. Sylvester Street and N. Tacoma Street and is conducive to commercial development. It was purchased to expand business. Sale Two ($6.40/SF) ̶ is the May 2019 sale of a 9,375 square foot parcel at the southwest corner of E. “A” Street and S. Myrtle Avenue in Pasco. It is rectangular with average access from both E. “A” Street and S. Myrtle Avenue and is conducive to commercial development. It is served by public utilities. The site has generally level topography. It is zoned Light Industrial (I-1), which is similar to the subject. Sale Three ($4.50/SF) ̶ is the March 2019 sale of a 42,000 square foot larger parcel at the northeast corner of S. 2nd Avenue and W. Columbia Street in Pasco. The parcel is level and zoned Community Commercial (C- 3). It is rectangular with average access from both S. 2nd Avenue and W. Columbia Street and is conducive to commercial development. It is served by public utilities. As of the date of inspection the property had not been developed. Sale Four ($4.15/SF) ̶ is the October 2018 purchase of a 72,310 square foot larger parcel along W. Sylvester Street in Pasco. The parcel is served by public utilities. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. It is zoned Community Commercial (C-1), which is similar to the subject with average access from W. Sylvester Street and is conducive to commercial development. It was purchased to hold for development. Sale Five ($3.33/SF) ̶ is the August 2018 purchase of a 18,750 square foot larger parcel at the northeast corner of E. “B” Street and S. Myrtle Avenue in Pasco. The parcel is level topography and zoned Light Industrial (I-1), which is similar to the subject. It is rectangular with average access from both E. “B” Street and S. Myrtle Avenue and is conducive to commercial development. It is served by all public utilities. As of the date of inspection the property had not been developed. Page 70 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 19 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Sale Six ($2.01/SF) ̶ is the May 2018 purchase of a 91,911 square foot larger parcel along N. Commerical Avenue in Pasco. The parcel is level and zoned Light Industrial (I-1), which is similar to the subject. It is rectangular with average access from N. Commerical Avenue and is conducive to commercial development. It is served by all public utilities. It has good exposure and frontage along N. Commerical Avenue. As of the date of inspection the property had not been developed. Land Value: The comparable sales support a value range for the subject of approximately $2.01 to $6.40 per square foot. No adjustments are warranted to the comparable data when utilizing the “ATF” method. Sale Two represents the high end of the range for the subject at $6.40 per square foot and Sale Six represents the low end of the range $2.01 per square foot. With consideration of the subject’s size (railroad corridor) limited current comparables, location, current real estate market conditions and surrounding development/growth an Across the Fence (ATF) value toward the upper end of the presented range of $5.25/SF is considered reasonable. Highest and Best Use – After Condition: The Highest and Best use of the subject in the After Condition remains the same as in the Before Condition. Description of the proposed acquisition: Lewis Street provides an important east-west connection across the BNSF freight yard via a narrow two-lane underpass built in 1937. The concrete structure is severely deteriorated, obsolete, and unsafe for both vehicles and pedestrians. The project will relocate a portion of Lewis Street northerly of the existing underpass; construct a new overpass between 2nd Avenue and Oregon Avenue. A new overpass will replace the existing underpass which is deteriorating. The project will provide greatly improved pedestrian facilities to access the downtown core from the residential areas, and offer substantial track expansion opportunities for BNSF Railway. The project as a whole requires the full acquisition of numerous private properties, several business relocations, partial fee acquisitions, temporary construction easements and permanent and temporary easements from BNSF. In 2010 and 2011, the City of Pasco acquired 25 private parcels in their entirety, converted 5 City owned parcels to public right-of-way, acquired linear strips of right-of-way and easements from 2 additional properties, and completed the relocations. Because federal funds were involved in the demolition of the improvements, the acquisitions and relocations were done in accordance state and federal regulations including the Uniform Act and were reviewed by WSDOT. No easements were acquired from BNSF Railway at that time. The acquisition from the subject parcel is as follows; Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. Page 71 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 20 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass, until December 31, 2021 or approximately 29 months from date of value (2.42 years). Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width, until June 30, 2022 or approximately 36 months from date of value (±3 years). ACQUISITION VALUATION: Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement – This area is approximately 38,260.49 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor extending from Lewis Street just west of Oregon Avenue on the east to the parcel located west of Tacoma Avenue and touching down. Note that this acquisition includes a surface element for annual inspection and maintenance on/from the ground beneath the bridge structure. It is understood that the City would need to request and obtain permission to enter from BNSF including an escort onto the secure rail yard for these annual inspections and maintenance activities. A Construction and Maintenance Agreement (CMA) between parties will be established outlining this process. This area is ±38,260.49 square feet and is described and displayed on the following legal description and exhibit map. The previously concluded land value of $5.25/SF is applied to this area. Based on the Railroad Valuation Policy of Washington State Department of Transportation an Aerial/Airspace corridor is to be appraised at 25 percent and an at grade crossing appraised at 50% of the concluded market land value. The underlying fee ownership will share its bundle of ownership/property rights with the purchasers of the permanent Aerial/Airspace easement and the surface elements described above, who will have access and use of the easement area, as described herein. This loss of fee simple ownership and loss of rights due to the easement represents this taking and the owner must be reimbursed. In this case, the easement area will be moderate impacted as the rights being acquired are Aerial/Airspace rights and the surface elements described above. Thus, the owner‘s economic use of this area is less impacted with this type of easement in place compared to a full grade crossing. The afore mentioned Railroad Valuation Policy - WSDOT is further supported by the International Right of Way Association (IRWA) publication in both the May/June 2006 and the November/December 2014 of the Right of Way magazine in which is noted a range of fee discounts usually found in a number of kinds of easements. FEE PERCENTAGE COMMENTS ON IMPACT POTENTIAL TYPES OF DISCOUNT EASEMENT 90 -100% Severe impact on surface use -Overhead electric, Flowage Conveyance of future uses easements, Railroad ROW, Irrigation Canals, Access Roads 75 - 89% Major impact on surface use -Pipelines, Drainage / Flow Conveyance of future uses easements Page 72 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 21 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 51 - 74% Some impact on surface use -Pipelines, Scenic easements Conveyance of ingress/egress rights 50% Balanced use-owner & easement -Water or sewer lines, Cable lines holder Telecommunications 26 - 49% Location along a property line -Water or sewer lines, Cable lines Location across non-usable land area 11 - 25% Subsurface / air rights with minimal -Air rights, Water or sewer lines effect on use and utility Location within a setback 0 -10% Nominal effect on use and utility -Small subsurface easement The subject’s Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement for the overcrossing is considered a moderate impact to surface uses, which noted a range of from ±50%. Weighting this data and the Railroad Valuation Policy – WSDOT, the permanent easement's effect, and a value indication for the permanent easement of 45% of the fee simple value is considered appropriate. Therefore, the proposed ±38,260.49 square foot Aerial/Airspace Easement is valued as follows; ±38,260.49 SF x $5.25/SF x 45% = $90,390, rounded Permanent Pier Easement (No. 1, No. 2 & No. 3) – This area is approximately 4,680 square feet; please refer to the Subject Plot Plan for location, consisting of footing/piers for the overcrossing. This area is ±4,680 square feet and is described and displayed on the following legal description and exhibit map. The previously concluded land value of $5.25/SF is applied to this area. The underlying fee ownership will share its bundle of ownership/property rights with the purchasers of the Permanent Pier easement, who will have access and use of the easement area, as described herein. This loss of fee simple ownership and loss of rights due to the easement represents this taking and the owner must be reimbursed. In this case, the easement area will be severe impact on surface uses and conveyance of future uses, which noted above to range of from 90% to 100%. Considering the permanent effect of the Permanent Pier easement, a value indication for the permanent easement of 100% of the fee simple value is considered appropriate. Therefore, the proposed ±4,680 square foot Pier Easement is valued as follows; ±4,680 SF x $5.25/SF = $24,570 Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 & No. 2) – This area is approximately 7,570.86 square feet, running parallel to the existing railroad corridor extending north/northwest from roughly each end of the new Lewis Street overpass bridge. This area is ±7,570.86 square feet and is described and displayed on the following legal description and exhibit map. The previously concluded land value of $5.25/SF is applied to this area. Page 73 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 22 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 The underlying fee ownership will share its bundle of ownership/property rights with the purchasers of the Permanent Pier easement, who will have access and use of the easement area, as described herein. This loss of fee simple ownership and loss of rights due to the easement represents this taking and the owner must be reimbursed. In this case, the easement area will be severe to major impact on surface uses and conveyance of future uses, which noted above to range of from 75% to 100%. Considering the permanent effect of the Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ easement, a value indication for the permanent easement of 50% of the fee simple value is considered appropriate. Therefore, the proposed ±7,570.86 square foot Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ Easement is valued as follows; ±7,570.86 SF x $5.25/SF x 50% = $19,875, rounded Temporary Construction Easement – This area is approximately 124,187.79 square feet, encumbering the existing railroad corridor from the existing Lewis Street underpass to approximately Clark Street, a portion on the eastern boundary extending beyond and a 15 foot wide strip along the western boundary of the corridor extending southeast from the existing underpass, until June 30, 2022 or approximately 36 months from date of value (±3 years). The project requires the ±124,187.79 square foot temporary construction easement until June 30, 2022 or approximately 36 months from date of value (±3 years).. The common method in estimating the value is similar to a land lease whereby a reasonable annual rate of return is applied to the value of the land to be encumbered over the term of the lease. Rates of return for land leases vary depending upon market conditions but typically fall in the range of 6 to 12 percent of land value. An annual rate of return of 8 percent of land value is reasonable. The value of the TCE is estimated to be; ±124,187.79 SF x $5.25/SF x 8% x ±3 years = $156,480, rounded Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit – This area is approximately 7,373.50 square feet, crossing roughly perpendicular to the existing railroad corridor along the Clark Street centerline at 16 feet in width, until June 30, 2022 or approximately 36 months from date of value (±3 years). The project requires the ±7,373.50 square foot temporary construction easement until June 30, 2022 or approximately 36 months from date of value (±3 years). The common method in estimating the value is similar to a land lease whereby a reasonable annual rate of return is applied to the value of the land to be encumbered over the term of the lease. Rates of return for land leases vary depending upon market conditions but typically fall in the range of 6 to 12 percent of land value. In addition, the appraiser has reviewed municipal bonds which exhibit lease terms similar in time to that of the proposed TCE, it is the opinion of the appraiser that municipal bonds establish a lower lease rate threshold for the subject inasmuch as there is no physical, day-to-day encounter with municipal bonds while a temporary construction easement will include temporary physical occupancy by the grantee of the subject site. Conversely, long-term ground lease rates require a higher risk premium in order to offset the longer lease term commitment of the leased fee interest (grantor/landlord). This is consistent with the concept of a “normal yield curve” wherein rates of return increase as time to maturity increases. An annual rate of return of 8 percent of land value is considered reasonable. The value of the TCE is estimated to be; ±7,373.50 SF x $5.25/SF x 8% x ±3 years = $9,295, rounded Page 74 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 23 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Valuation of the improvements within the proposed acquisition: As mentioned previously, the subject is an active railroad corridor owned by BNSF Railway Company. No consideration was given to any improvements and/or structures on the property, i.e. rails, ties and compacted ballast, since they are unaffected by the aerial nature of the acquisition. EXPLANATION, MEASUREMENT, SUPPORTING DATA AND ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES, COSTS-TO-CURE, AND SPECIAL BENEFITS. There are no damages to the remainder. There are no special benefits to the remainder. Page 75 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 24 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL CONCLUSIONS: (Accounting tabulation - NOT indicative of appraisal method employed) Indicated Subject Value 'Before' Project Highest and Best Use 'Before' Assemblage/Corr. Land Value 'Before' $ Site Improvements ‘Before’ Project $ TOTAL SUBJECT VALUE 'BEFORE' PROJECT: $0 Indicated Subject Value 'After' Project Highest and Best Use 'After' – Assemblage/Corr. Land Value 'After' – $0 Site Improvements 'After' Project $0 Less Cost-to-Cure (if any) TOTAL SUBJECT VALUE 'AFTER' PROJECT: $0 Estimated Value Allocation of Rights Acquired Land= Perm Aerial Bridge & Maintenance Ease. – ±38,260.49 SF x $5.25/SF x 45% $90,390 Perm Pier Ease. – ±4,680 SF x $5.25/SF $24,570 Perm Access/Bridge Inspection (15’) Ease. – ±7,570.86 SF x $5.25/SF x 50% $19,875 Temporary Construction Ease. – ±124,187.79 SF x $5.25/SF x 8% x 3 years $156,480 Temporary Track Crossing/Permit – ±7,373.50 SF x $5.25/SF x 8% x 3 years $9,295 Total Land $300,610 Total Improvements – $ 0 Total Acquisition $300,610 Plus Damages and Cost-to-Cure -0- Loss in Value 'After' $ Total Damages and Cost-to-Cure $0 Less Special Benefits (if any) $ -0- Total Estimated Owner Compensation $300,610 Note: Totals should be rounded to nearest significant market number. Total Subject value 'before' Less Total Subject value 'after' must equal Estimated Owner Compensation Page 76 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 25 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL I, James Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS, do herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and is my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. I have no (or specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of the work performed and no (or the specified) personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of the work performed or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in this report or from its use. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). I have made a personal inspection of the subject property and the market data utilized in this report. No one provided significant appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing this certification. I have not performed any services regarding the subject property as an appraiser or in any other capacity within the preceding three years of acceptance of this assignment. Dated: 09/23/2019 James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Lingeman Valuation & Consulting, LLC State of Washington Certified Real Estate Appraiser Certification No: 1101965 Expiration Date: May 8, 2020 WSDOT Approved Appraiser/Review Appraiser Page 77 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Page 26 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 Lingeman Valuation & Consulting JAMES E. LINGEMAN, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS PO Box 823267 360.909.0855 Vancouver, WA 98682 PROFESSIONAL AFFLIATION & LICENSURE: SR/WA - Senior Member Designation, International Right of Way Association ASA – Accredited Senior Appraiser Designation, American Society of Appraisers IFAS – Senior Appraiser Specialist Designation, National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers Member of the National Association of Realtors/ Clark County Association of Realtors Member of the National Notary Association Approved Appraiser and Review Appraiser for the State of Washington Department of Transportation Approved Appraiser for the State of Oregon Department of Transportation Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Washington - Certificate No. 1101965 Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of Oregon - Certificate No. C000926 Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Federal Certification via WA-OMWBE EDUCATION: Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, California, Fall 1999 Bachelor of Arts – Liberal Studies Real Estate Courses  Real Estate Law  Real Estate Finance  Real Estate Practices  Principals of Real Estate Appraisal  Residential Case Studies  Income Approach  Applied Income Property Appraisal & Case Studies  Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice  Forestry Appraisal Practices  Environmental Issues for Appraisers Appraisal Institute Courses  Report Writing and Valuation Analysis  Apartment Appraisal  Road Less Traveled: Special Purpose properties  Evaluating Commercial Construction  AI Business Practices and Ethics International Right of Way Association Courses  Principals of Land Acquisition  Ethics of the Right of Way Profession  Standards of Practice for R/W Professionals  Principals of Real Estate Negotiation  Bargaining Negotiations  Practical Negotiations for US Federal Funded Land Acquisitions  Conflict Management  Easement Valuation  Environmental Awareness  Real Property & Asset Management  Eminent Domain Law Basics for R/W Professionals  Principals of Real Estate Engineering  Reviewing Appraisals in Eminent Domain  Engineering Plan Development and Application EXPERIENCE: Lingeman Valuation & Consulting, LLC, Vancouver, WA; Principal Appraiser/Reviewer, 2011 to Present Washington Department of Transportation, Vancouver, WA; Appraiser/Property & Acquisition Specialist 3, 2008 to 2011 PGP Valuation Inc., Portland, OR; Fee Appraiser, 10/2001 to 7/2008 ASSIGNMENTS:  Eminent Domain Takings  Rural Properties – Res/Farm/Forest  Commercial/Industrial  Wetland/Open Space  Undeveloped Land  Subdivision  Agency Studies/Estimates  Special Purpose/Use Properties Page 78 of 186 Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, IFAS Page 26 2019-115A – BNSF RES-208 Rev 09-09 ADDENDA Page 79 of 186 LEGAL DESCRIPTION & ROW PLANS Page 80 of 186 44 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 104105TRAVISA. M ARD E NPROFES SI ONAL ENGINE ER39882 CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON SCALE: NONE COVER LEWIS ST. CLARK ST. COLUMBIA ST. 3 RD AVE. 2 ND AVE. 1 ST AVE.OREGON AVE.N. MAI N AVE.TACOMA AVE. OF NO.BYAPR.DATE(509) 545-3444REVISIONCITY OF PASCODESCRIPTIONPUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERINGCITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTONLEWIS ST. OVERPASSLEWIS ST. OVERPASS OTHER J-U-B COMPANIES GROUP LANGDON THE INC. MAPPING GATEWAY www.jub.comw 509 736 0790 f 509 783 2144 p 2810 West Clearwater Avenue, Suite 201, Kennewick, WA 99336 J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. AT EDOCS.JUB.COM. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF J-U-B's "ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT/DATA LIMITED LICENSE" FOUND IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROVIDED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, THE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ARE UNAUTHORIZED USE OR MISUSE OF THE DOCUMENTS, OR ANY PART THEREOF. ANY DAMAGES OR CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF, OR RELATED IN ANY WAY TO, THE USER'S RELEASES AND SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD J-U-B AND ITS AGENTS HARMLESS FROM SUCH DAMAGE OR CLAIM IS BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE. THE USER HEREBY THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OR MISUSE OF THE DOCUMENTS , OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER J-U-B AND ITS AGENTS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF SUCH IN THE DOCUMENTS), OR PROPERTY BOUNDARY LAYOUTS. GRADING OR EARTHWORK, SURVEY STAKING LAYOUT (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS INTENDED PROJECT. THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN CREATING DTM FOR OR ANY PART THEREOF, FOR ANY USE OTHER THAN AS DESIGNATED HEREIN FOR THE THEREOF, TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF J-U-B, OR (II) USE THE DOCUMENTS, OF J-U-B TO THE USER. THE USER SHALL NOT (I) DISSEMINATE THE DOCUMENTS, OR ANY PART THE USE OF THE DOCUMENTS CREATES NO DUTY IN CONTRACT, TORT, EQUITY OR OTHERWISE CONDITIONS IN THIS NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER. ("J-U-B") AND BY USING THE DOCUMENTS YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND THE PLANS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS (DOCUMENTS) ARE THE PROPERTY OF J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 N INCH, SCALE ACCORDINGLY AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONE ONE INCH FILE : LAST UPDATED: \\kwkfiles\Public\Project\JUB\30-18-020 - COP Lewis Street Overpass\CAD\Right-of-Way\30-18-020_RW_COVER.shtmwilkinson8/26/201912:12:41 PM8/26/2019 JUB PROJ. # : 30-18-020 DRAWN BY: MMW DESIGN BY: BEH CHECKED BY: RHDS. MAI N AVE.BNSF RAI LWAY30-18-020_PS_COP_COVER.dgn FED AID #:STPUS-HLP-3530(006) JULY 2019 RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS COVER SHEETRIGHT-OF-WAY PLANSLEGEND R/W PRE-PROJECT EXISTING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT EASEMENT TYPE AND LOCATIONS. SEE COLOR CODING ON RW-3 FOR * *Page 81 of 186 20181412101610121012141618202018141610126466687072746 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 55 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 100102104105 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2830 32 34 36 5 TRAVISA. M ARD E NPROFES SI ONAL ENGINE ER39882 LEWIS ST. FRANKLIN COUNTY SEC. 29 T.9N. R.30E. W.M. L-LINE L PC 24+76.33 L PRC 27+85.64 CLARK ST. EXISTING EC LINE EC PI 19+25.03 T PI 13+79.45 = EL-LINE LEWIS ST. EXISTING M-LINEMAIN AVE.O-LINEOREGON AVE.EC POB 5+00.00 EL PI 19+25.79 T PI 17+60.18 = O PI 67+84.18 EL PI 32+81.08 = L PI 33+12.94 = M PI 13+67.85 L POC 29+62.23 =T-LINETACOMA AVE.L-LINE LEWIS ST.F-LINE1ST AVE.S-LINE2ND AVE.S PI 13+79.97 EC PI 9+79.96 = S POB 10+00.00 F POB 10+00.00 T POB 10+00.00 S POE 21+40.33 F POE 21+40.18 T POE 21+40.08 RW-1 RHD BEH MMW 30-18-020 =EL POT 30+63.08 L PT 30+94.94 B1 EL PI 16+59.30 LO POB 100+00.00 = L PRC 11+44.38 L PT 13+82.93 B2 B3 B4 EL POB 5+00.00 = EL POB 5+00.00 L POB 4+81.86 S PI 17+60.18 EL PI 9+80.68 = L PI 9+62.55 = EL PI 10+20.10 L PC 10+01.97 = F PI 17+60.18 EL PI 14+59.30= LO PI 102+00.00= LEWIS ST. ON LO-LINE EL PI 12+16.39 = LO PC 104+42.91 = B5 T PI 16+30.18 L PI 19+38.88 =F PI 16+30.18 L PI 14+72.51 = B6 B7 B8 B9 B11 B10 B12 B13 EC PI 14+58.89 F PI 13+79.74 = L POC 11+95.64 (6.00' RT) LO PT 105+46.21 =CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTONLEWIS ST. OVERPASSCP# 108 CP# 118CP# 106CP# 115 RPOJECT BENCH MARK PSI# 46-26 SHEET RW-3 SHEET RW-4SHEET RW-2 Kennewick, Washington 993362810 W. Clearwater AvenueFax: 509.736.0790Phone: 509.783.2144Suite 201DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:BYAPR.DATESHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONJ-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF WHOLE OR PART, FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.PROPERTY OF HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INCORPORATED REUSE OF DRAWINGS NO.BYREVISIONAPR.DATEJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.www.jub.comBYAPR.DATEJUB PROJ. # : INCH, SCALE ACCORDINGLY AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONE ONE INCHJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.FILE : Engineers Surveyors Planners LAST UPDATED: 30-18-020_RW-1.sht \\Kwkfiles\public\Project\JUB\30-18-020 - COP Lewis Street Overpass\CAD\Right-of-Way\30-18-020_RW-1.shtmwilkinson8/26/201912:12:42 PM8/26/2019 STPUS-HLP-3530(006)FED AID #: 40°47'56" LT 200.00'142.41' CURVE DATA P.I. STATION DELTA RADIUS TANGENT LENGTH S 40°47'56" RT 335.00'238.54' 724.81'157.04'309.30' NC NC NC 24°27'01" LT 24°27'01" RT 724.81'309.30'NC 139.35' CURVE DATA P.I. STATION DELTA RADIUS TANGENT LENGTH S NC147°58'04" RT L-LINE LEWIS ST. LO-LINE LEWIS ST. ON 12+68.96 26+33.38 29+42.68 74.38' 157.04' 40.00'105+82.26 10+76.34 124.58' BEARING DATA O-LINE M-LINE T-LINE F-LINE F-LINE S-LINE EL-LINE EC-LINE LO-LINE L-LINE L-LINE L-LINE L-LINE B13 B12 B11 B10 B9 B8 B7 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 N 19°50'49 W S 19°50'49" E S 19°55'09" E S 19°52'00" E S 19°53'36" E S 19°54'53" E N 70°09'11" E N 70°07'17" E S 70°09'11" W N 70°09'11" E N 70°09'11" E N 70°09'11" E N 70°09'11" E 103.30 SURVEY CONTROL POINTS POINT NUMBER NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION 106 108 118 115 331057.43 331174.82 330794.02 331270.98 1998556.03 1997933.90 1997990.96 1999115.58 380.16 374.55 373.50 380.31 MAG NAIL IN WALK MAG NAIL IN WALK MAG NAIL IN WALK MAG NAIL IN WALK HORIZONTAL DATUM: FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONTROL SURVEY, RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF SURVEYS AT PAGES 953, 954 & 955, RECORDS OF FROM CONTROL POINTS 167, 185 & 187 ACCORDING TO THE FRANKLIN COUNTY GPS GEODETIC BASIS OF BEARING: NAD83(91) WA SPC SOUTH ZONE, US SURVEY FEET. COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BENCH MARK: ELEV. 374.48 BRASS PIN IN MONUMENT BOX AT THE INTERSECTION OF E. LEWIS ST. & 2ND AVE PSI# 46-26 SI MON NAND SURVEY CONTROL PLANALIGNMENT, SHEET INDEX, PROPERTY MAPRIGHT-OF-WAY PLANSSCALE IN FEET 0 125 250 2829323329303132BRASS CAP POSITION OF BRASS CAP POSITION OF 2932S 89°38'05" W N 19°55'09" W1596.88'2145.93'2655.14'2647.34'TAM1REVISED BEARING DIRECTIONMMW7/18/19VERTICAL DATUM: CITY OF PASCO SPATIAL INFORMATION (PSI) VERTICAL CONTROL NETWORK, NGVD 29, DATUM 1 1 1 Page 82 of 186 8 10 12 14 16 100102104 105 8 10 12 14 16141416181816 N70°09'11"E LEWIS ST N70°09'11"E LEWIS ST S19°52'00"ES19°54'53"E2ND AVENUE1ST AVENUEN70°07'17"E CLARK ST L PRC 11+44.38 S 17+60.18 L 9+62.55 = L PC 10+01.97 F 17+60.18 L PT 13+82.93 R/WR/WR/W R/W R/W R/WR/WR/W R/W R/W R/W R/WR/WR/WR/W R/W R/WR/W R/W TRAVISA. M ARD E NPROFES SI ONAL ENGINE ER39882 CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTONLEWIS ST. OVERPASSRW-2NFRANKLIN COUNTY SEC. 29 T.9N. R.30E. W.M.RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANSKennewick, Washington 993362810 W. Clearwater AvenueFax: 509.736.0790Phone: 509.783.2144Suite 201DESIGN BY: BEH DRAWN BY: MMW CHECKED BY: RHD BYAPR.DATESHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONJ-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF WHOLE OR PART, FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.PROPERTY OF HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INCORPORATED REUSE OF DRAWINGS NO.BYREVISIONAPR.DATEJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.www.jub.comBYAPR.DATEJUB PROJ. # : 30-18-020 INCH, SCALE ACCORDINGLY AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONE ONE INCHJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.FILE : Engineers Surveyors Planners LAST UPDATED: 30-18-020_RW-2.sht \\Kwkfiles\public\Project\JUB\30-18-020 - COP Lewis Street Overpass\CAD\Right-of-Way\30-18-020_RW-2.shtmwilkinson8/26/201912:12:43 PM05/30/2019 STPUS-HLP-3530(006)FED AID #: SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 PARCEL OWNER H I J K M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 112-036-083 112-036-092 112-036-109 112-036-118 112-036-145 112-036-136 112-036-127 112-035-262 112-035-253 112-035-244 112-035-235 112-035-226 112-035-217 112-035-208 112-035-164 112-035-173 112-035-182 112-035-191 CITY OF PASCO / APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY INC CITY OF PASCO / APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY INC CITY OF PASCO / APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY INC CITY OF PASCO / ALYESKAFLATS LLC CITY OF PASCO / SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL CITY OF PASCO / SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL CITY OF PASCO / SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL CITY OF PASCO / J&M INVESTMENTS CITY OF PASCO / LLAMAS, JOSE A & VICTORINA CITY OF PASCO / LLAMAS, JOSE A & VICTORINA CITY OF PASCO / LLAMAS, JOSE A & VICTORINA CITY OF PASCO / VERA, JESUS CITY OF PASCO / WALSH, DANIEL H CITY OF PASCO / T-C UNION GOSPEL MISSION CITY OF PASCO / LABORER'S INTERNATIONAL UNION #348 CITY OF PASCO / LABORER'S INTERNATIONAL UNION #348 CITY OF PASCO / TRI CITY UNION GOSPEL MISSION CITY OF PASCO / TRI CITY UNION GOSPEL MISSION 7000 7000 XXXX 5750 7000 14000 7000 4970 3430 7000 5600 7000 14000 14000 14000 21000 10500 10500 TOTAL AREAPARCEL ID R/W LT REMAINDER RT EASEMENT Z Y X W K J I H MNOPQRST UV LEWIS ST 17+00.00MATCH LINE SEE SHEET RW-3PARCELS ACQUIRED PER LEWIS STREET PROPERTY MAP DATED 04/06/2010 PREPARED BY CITY OF PASCO 7000 7000 XXXX 5750 7000 14000 7000 4970 3430 7000 5600 7000 14000 14000 14000 21000 10500 10500 40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'40'Page 83 of 186 18 20 22 18 20 22 241614 2018N70°07'17"E CLARK ST N70°09'11"E LEWIS ST TACOMA AVENUE S19°55'09"ER/W R/W R/WR/WR/W R/W R/WR/WTRAVISA. M ARD E NPROFES SI ONAL ENGINE ER39882NSCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 FRANKLIN COUNTY SEC. 29 T.9N. R.30E. W.M.Kennewick, Washington 993362810 W. Clearwater AvenueFax: 509.736.0790Phone: 509.783.2144Suite 201DESIGN BY: BEH DRAWN BY: MMW CHECKED BY: RHD BYAPR.DATESHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONJ-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF WHOLE OR PART, FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.PROPERTY OF HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INCORPORATED REUSE OF DRAWINGS NO.BYREVISIONAPR.DATEJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.www.jub.comBYAPR.DATEJUB PROJ. # : 30-18-020 INCH, SCALE ACCORDINGLY AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONE ONE INCHJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.FILE : Engineers Surveyors Planners LAST UPDATED: 30-18-020_RW-3.sht \\Kwkfiles\public\Project\JUB\30-18-020 - COP Lewis Street Overpass\CAD\Right-of-Way\30-18-020_RW-3.shtmwilkinson8/26/201912:12:44 PM05/30/2019 STPUS-HLP-3530(006)FED AID #:CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTONLEWIS ST. OVERPASSRIGHT-OF-WAY PLANSRW-3LEWIS ST 17+00.00MATCH LINE SEE SHEET RW-2LEWIS ST 25+00.00MATCH LINE SEE SHEET RW-4G A B C D F L E PARCEL 100 EASEMENTS TO BE ACQUIRED FROM BNSF RAILWAY OWNER BNSF RAILWAY TOTAL AREA UNKNOWN R/W 0 PIER EASEMENT 4,680 SF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION) PERMANENT 15' ACCESS EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AERIAL, BRIDGE INSPECTION 38,260.49 SF EASEMENT AND PERMIT AREA TEMPORARY TRACK CROSSING 100 59.40' S70°21'22"W N19°55'09"W 204.76'N19°55'09"W 252.74'L 19+63.83, 37.99' LT L 19+78.83, 37.99' LT S19°50'49"E 205.01'S19°50'49"E 251.98'L 24+54.40, 37.99' LT L 24+39.40, 37.99' LT L 24+39.40, 259.01' LT L 24+39.40, 243.01' LT L 24+43.84, 358.82' LT N19°55'30"W 68.85' L 24+39.40, 289.97' LT L 24+54.40, 289.97' LT L 24+39.40, 289.97' LT S70°09'11"W 25.00' L-7 L-6 L-5 L 23+64.27, 258.96' LT S08°30'01"E 102.06' L 23+84.35, 359.03' LT S19°50'49"E 16.00' S70°09'11"W 15.00'S19°50'49"E 379.97'S19°50'49"E 10.00' S19°50'49"E 78.00' T PC 24+76.33 S19°50'49"E 40.00' L 24+54.40, 80.00' RT S19°50'49"E 40.00' S70°09'11"W 116.96'L-4N70°09'11"E 147.00'L-3L-2L-1 S70°09'11"W 15.00' N70°09'11"E 52.52' N70°09'11"E 20.00' N70°09'11"E 99.00' S70°09'11"W 20.00' N70°09'11"E 147.00' S70°09'11"W 20.00' L 19+63.51, 290.73' LT S70°04'51"W 15.00' L 19+78.51, 290.75' LT S19°55'09"E 32.00' L 19+78.55, 258.75' LT L 19+78.57, 242.75' LT S19°55'09"E 16.00' L 19+63.98, 80.00' RT L 24+54.40, 39.99' RTL 19+63.93, 39.99' RT N19°55'09"W 40.00' N70°09'11"E 490.41' N70°09'11"E 490.41'N19°55'09"W 224.79'S19°55'09"E 224.79'L 19+79.37, 394.77' RT L 19+64.37, 394.79' RT S70°04'51"W 15.00' L 19+64.09, 170.00' RT L 19+79.09, 169.98' RT N70°09'11"E 15.00' T 17+60.18 N70°09'11"E 515.36' N19°55'09"W 40.00' S19°55'09"E 40.00' N19°55'09"W 10.00' N70°09'11"E 466.49' N70°09'11"E 25.00' S19°50'49"E 78.00'S19°50'49"E 78.00' S19°50'49"E 78.00' 78.00' S19°50'49"E 78.00' S19°50'49"E 78.00' S19°50'49"E N70°07'17"E 460.85' N70°07'17"E 460.83' TO BE RETAINED 15' UTILITY CORRIDOR EASEMENT TO BE VACATED EXISTING EASEMENTFRONT AVELEWIS ST N70°09'11"E 99.00' N70°09'11"E 101.96' 78.00' N19°55'09"W N70°09'11"E 10.57' 10' 40' 40' 40' 25' 25' BNSF RAILWAY PARCEL OWNER A B C D E F G 112-036-065 112-036-163 112-036-172 112-036-181 112-036-190 112-036-207 112-036-074 CITY OF PASCO / APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY INC CITY OF PASCO / APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY INC CITY OF PASCO / WA STATE RAILROADS HISTORIC SOCIETY CITY OF PASCO / DIAZ, BLANCA ESTELA CITY OF PASCO / CARDENAS, MARCO ANTONIO 3250 9750 3315 9750 3250 9750 7000 L 112-036-154 CITY OF PASCO / WRIGHT, DON 7000 CITY OF PASCO / MERCADO CITY OF PASCO / MERCADO TOTAL AREAPARCEL ID R/W LT REMAINDER RT EASEMENT PARCELS ACQUIRED PER LEWIS STREET PROPERTY MAP DATED 04/06/2010 PREPARED BY CITY OF PASCO 3250 9750 3315 9750 3250 9750 7000 7000L-7 L-6 L-5 L-4 L-3 L-2 L-1 LINE TABLE LINE #DIRECTION N70°09'11"E S19°50'49"E N70°07'17"E N70°09'11"E N70°09'11"E N70°09'11"E S70°09'11"W LENGTH 4.43' 30.96' 75.13' 20.00' 20.00' 20.00' 67.52'40'40'40'40'25'25' 25'25' NOTE: IN COLOR. THIS SHEET MUST BE PRINTED 1 1MMWTAM08/08/191 1124,187.79 SF 7,373.50 SF 7,570.86 SF EASEMENT AREAS2MMWTAM08/26/19PIER EASEMENT2Page 84 of 186 26 2830 32 34 666870121072S19°50'49"EOREGON AVENUEN70°09'11"E LEWIS STS19°50'49"EMAIN AVENUEM 13+67.85 L 29+62.23 = O 67+84.18 L 33+12.94 = R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W R/WR/WR/W R/WR/WR/WR/W TRAVISA. M ARD E NPROFES SI ONAL ENGINE ER39882 FRANKLIN COUNTY SEC. 29 T.9N. R.30E. W.M.NSCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 Kennewick, Washington 993362810 W. Clearwater AvenueFax: 509.736.0790Phone: 509.783.2144Suite 201DESIGN BY: BEH DRAWN BY: MMW CHECKED BY: RHD BYAPR.DATESHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONJ-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF WHOLE OR PART, FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.PROPERTY OF HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INCORPORATED REUSE OF DRAWINGS NO.BYREVISIONAPR.DATEJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.www.jub.comBYAPR.DATEJUB PROJ. # : 30-18-020 INCH, SCALE ACCORDINGLY AT FULL SIZE, IF NOT ONE ONE INCHJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.FILE : Engineers Surveyors Planners LAST UPDATED: 30-18-020_RW-4.sht \\Kwkfiles\public\Project\JUB\30-18-020 - COP Lewis Street Overpass\CAD\Right-of-Way\30-18-020_RW-4.shtmwilkinson8/26/201912:12:45 PM05/30/2019 STPUS-HLP-3530(006)FED AID #:CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTONLEWIS ST. OVERPASSRIGHT-OF-WAY PLANSRW-4 PARCEL OWNER TOTAL AREAPARCEL ID R/W LT REMAINDER RT EASEMENT AA AB AC AF 112-083-175 112-083-120 112-083-111 112-083-175 CITY OF PASCO / FRANKLIN COUNTY XXXX 6500 6500 XXXX CITY OF PASCO CITY OF PASCO CITY OF PASCO AC AB AF 1 2 20.00' S19°50'49"ELEWIS ST 25+00.00MATCH LINE SEE SHEET RW-3AA PARCELS ACQUIRED PER LEWIS STREET OVERPASS PROPERTY MAP DATED 04/06/2010 PREPARED BY CITY OF PASCO PARCEL OWNER TOTAL AREAPARCEL ID R/W LT REMAINDER RT EASEMENT XXXX 6500 6500 XXXX 47207.00 SF 1 2 112-081-257 112-082-194 SIHOTA, AMRIK S & SK PARCELS ACQUIRED PER LEWIS STREET OVERPASS RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS DATED 05/27/2011 PREPARED BY J-U-B OREGON STREET GROUP LLC / KIM LLC 33750.00 SF 31560.21 SF 46161.98 SF 2189.79 SF 1045.02 SF 1991.17 SF PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT 1200.00 SF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EASEMENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 5' UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE PRE-PROJECT EASEMENT TO BE RE-ACQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION N70°09'11"E 60.00' L 30+75.17, 45.29' RT L 30+75.17, 65.29' RT L 31+33.94, 45.00' RT L 31+33.94, 65.00' RT 20.00' N19°50'49"W RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE PRE-PROJECT 40'40'50'45'40'40'45'45'1MMWTAM7/18/19REVISED TEMP. CONST. EASEMENT AREA1Page 85 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Perm Aerial Inspection-Maintenance Esmt LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 PERMANENT AERIAL INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ACQUISITION PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A permanent aerial bridge inspection and maintenance easement located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 50.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East, 490.48 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of Front Avenue, said point being 25.00 feet Westerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence North 19°50’49” West along the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 78.00 feet; Thence leaving the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue, South 70°09’11” West, 490.56 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, said point being 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence South 19°55’09” East along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 78.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 38,260.49 square feet (0.88 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 86 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Perm Pier Esmt No 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 PERMANENT BRIDGE PIER EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 1 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A permanent bridge pier easement located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 50.00 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East, 67.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence continuing North 70°09’11” East, 20.00 feet; Thence North 19°50’49” West, 78.00 feet; Thence South 70°09’11” West, 20.00 feet; Thence South 19°50’49” East, 78.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 1,560.00 square feet (0.04 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 87 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Perm Pier Esmt No 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 PERMANENT BRIDGE PIER EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 2 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A permanent bridge pier easement located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 50.00 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East, 186.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence continuing North 70°09’11” East, 20.00 feet; Thence North 19°50’49” West, 78.00 feet; Thence South 70°09’11” West, 20.00 feet; Thence South 19°50’49” East, 78.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 1,560.00 square feet (0.04 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 88 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Perm Pier Esmt No 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 PERMANENT BRIDGE PIER EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 3 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A permanent bridge pier easement located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 50.00 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East, 353.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence continuing North 70°09’11” East, 20.00 feet; Thence North 19°50’49” West, 78.00 feet; Thence South 70°09’11” West, 20.00 feet; Thence South 19°50’49” East, 78.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 1,560.00 square feet (0.04 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 89 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Perm 15' Access Esmt No 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 PERMANENT 15-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 1 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A permanent 15-foot wide access easement located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 128.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East, 15.00 feet; Thence North 19°55’09” West parallel to and 15.00 feet Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 252.76 feet; Thence South 70°04’51” West, 15.00 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, said point being 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence South 19°55’09” East along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 252.74 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 3,791.23 square feet (0.08 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 90 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Perm 15' Access Esmt No 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 PERMANENT 15-FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 2 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A permanent 15-foot wide access easement located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 515.36 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°50’49” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Front Avenue at a point 25.00 feet Westerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°50’49” West along the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 128.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence leaving the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue, South 70°09’11” West, 15.00 feet; Thence North 19°50’49” West parallel to and 15.00 feet Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 251.97 feet; Thence North 70°09’11” East, 15.00 feet the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue; Thence South 19°50’49” East along the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 251.98 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 3,779.63 square feet (0.09 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 91 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Temp Construction Esmt No 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 1 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A temporary construction easement for bridge construction located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, South 19°55’09” East, 40.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described, said point being on the Southerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street at a point 40.00 feet Southerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East along the Southerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street for a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence leaving the Southerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, South 19°55’09” East parallel to and 15.00 feet Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 224.79 feet; Thence South 70°04’51” West, 15.00 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, said point being 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 224.79 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 3,371.85 square feet (0.08 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 92 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Temp Construction Esmt No 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 2 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A temporary construction easement for bridge construction located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 10.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, North 70°09’11” East parallel to and 10.00 feet Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street for a distance of 490.41 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of Front Avenue, said point being 25.00 feet Westerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence North 19°50’49” West along the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 40.00 feet; Thence South 70°09’11” West, 490.48 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, said point being 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence South 19°55’09” East along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 40.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 19,615.93 square feet (0.45 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 93 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Temp Construction Esmt No 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 3 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A temporary construction easement for bridge construction located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street at a point 25.00 feet Easterly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°55’09” West along the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 128.00 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street, South 70°09’11” West, 15.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence North 70°09’11” East, 460.58 feet to a point 15.00 feet Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of Front Avenue; Thence North 19°50’49” East parallel to and 15.00 feet Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 205.01 feet; Thence South 70°07’17” West, 460.83 feet to a point 15.00 feet Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street; Thence South 19°55’09” East parallel to and 15.00 feet Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of said Tacoma Street for a distance of 204.76 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 94,391.20 square feet (2.17 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 94 of 186 Projects\30--020_COP_Lewis Street Bridge\SURVEY\Legal Descriptions\Ownership 100 BNSF Railway Temp Construction Esmt No 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE FE RAILWAY - OWNERSHIP 100 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACQUISITION No. 4 PROJECT NO. 30-18-020 LEWIS STREET OVERPASS August 6, 2019 A temporary construction easement for bridge construction located in a portion of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 29 from which a Brass cap marking the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 bears South 89°38’05” West, 2655.14 feet; Thence South 89°38’05” West along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29 for a distance of 1596.88 feet; Thence leaving the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 29, North 19°55’09” West, 2145.93 feet to the centerline intersection of Lewis Street and Tacoma Street; Thence North 70°09’11” East along the centerline of said Lewis Street for a distance of 515.36 feet; Thence leaving centerline of said Lewis Street, North 19°50’49” West, 40.00 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles, said point also being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Front Avenue at a point 25.00 feet Westerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Northerly right-of-way line of said Lewis Street, North 19°50’49” West along the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 379.98 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of Clark Street, said point being 40.00 feet Northerly of the centerline thereof, when measured at right angles; Thence leaving the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue and the Northerly right-of-way line of said Clark Street, South 70°09’11” West, 10.57 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described; Thence North 19°55’30” West, 68.85 feet; Thence South 70°21’22” West, 59.40 feet; Thence South 08°30’01” East, 102.06 feet; Thence North 70°07’17” East, 75.13 feet to a point 15.00 feet West of the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue; Thence North 19°50’49” West parallel to and 15.00 feet Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of said Front Avenue for a distance of 30.96 feet; Thence North 70°09’11” East, 4.43 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and the end of this easement description. Containing 6,808.81 square feet (0.16 acres), more or less. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, covenants and restrictions apparent or of record. Page 95 of 186 COMPARABLES MAP Page 96 of 186 DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2015Data use subject to license.© DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2015.www.delorme.comTNMN (14.3°E)0600120018002400300002004006008001000ftmScale 1 : 22,4001" = 1,866.7 ft Data Zoom 13-2 Page 97 of 186 COMPARABLE WRITEUPS Page 98 of 186 MARKET DATA L-1 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: SWC of W. Sylvester Street and N. Tacoma Street, Pasco, WA (2) SALE SKETCH AND PHOTO ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE; (3) a. Access: W. Sylvester Street b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Commercial/Industrial dev. d. Zoning: I-1 e. Dimensions: Rectangular f. Area: 9,750 SF g. Sale Date: 05/29/2018 h. Price: $20,000 i. Instrument Type: Deed j. Terms: Cash to Seller k. Ex.Tax# or AF #: 58724 l. Seller: Gabriel Cruz m. Buyer: Jose Mercado-Duran n. Confirmed with: Jose Mercado-Duran 765.720.9698 o. Confirmed by: Jim Lingeman p. Date Inspected: 7/19/2019 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 112031015 (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This site is located at the SWC of W. Sylvester Street and N. Tacoma Street, in Pasco, WA. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. B.) Confirmation Data and Comments: Purchased to expand business. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION VALUE MARKET UNIT Land: 9,750 SF $ 20,000 $ 2.05/SF $ $ $ $ Buildings: None $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ 20,000 $ 2.05/SF Page 99 of 186 Comparable L-1 Page 100 of 186 MARKET DATA L-2 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: SWC of E. A Street and S. Myrtle Avenue, Pasco, WA (2) SALE SKETCH AND PHOTO ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE; (3) a. Access: E. A Street b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Commercial/Industrial dev. d. Zoning: I-1 e. Dimensions: Rectangular f. Area: 9,375 SF g. Sale Date: 05/23/2019 h. Price: $60,000 i. Instrument Type: Deed j. Terms: Cash to Seller k. Ex.Tax# or AF #: 61836 l. Seller: Gerardo Gonzalez Ramos m. Buyer: Omar & Ciria E. Araiza n. Confirmed with: Omar Arazia, 509.582.8596 o. Confirmed by: Jim Lingeman p. Date Inspected: 7/19/2019 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 112341341 (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This site is located at the SWC of E. A Street and S. Myrtle Avenue in Pasco, WA. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. B.) Confirmation Data and Comments: To hold for future development. Felt the price was right. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION VALUE MARKET UNIT Land: 9,375 SF $ 60,000 $ 6.40/SF $ $ $ $ Buildings: None $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ 60,000 $ 6.40/SF Page 101 of 186 Comparable L-2 Page 102 of 186 MARKET DATA L-3 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: NEC of S. 2nd Avenue and W. Columbia Street, Pasco, WA (2) SALE SKETCH AND PHOTO ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE; (3) a. Access: W. Columbia Street b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Commercial Development d. Zoning: C-3 e. Dimensions: Rectangular f. Area: 42,000 SF g. Sale Date: 03/18/2019 h. Price: $189,000 i. Instrument Type: Deed j. Terms: Cash to Seller k. Ex.Tax# or AF #: 61306 l. Seller: Columbia Real Estate Investments m. Buyer: A&E Towing Plus, LLC n. Confirmed with: Ernestina Morales 509.542.0283 o. Confirmed by: Jim Lingeman p. Date Inspected: 7/19/2019 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 112038090, 8107 & 8143 (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This site is located at the NEC of S. 2nd Avenue and W. Columbia Street in Pasco, WA. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. B.) Confirmation Data and Comments: Buyer confirmed the property was purchased for additional land for vehicle storage for the towing business. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION VALUE MARKET UNIT Land: 42,000 SF $ 189,000 $ 4.50/SF $ $ $ $ Buildings: None $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ 189,000 $ 4.50/SF Page 103 of 186 Comparable L-3 Page 104 of 186 MARKET DATA L-4 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: E. of 2202 W. Sylvester Street, Pasco, WA (2) SALE SKETCH AND PHOTO ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE; (3) a. Access: W. Sylvester Street b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Commercial Development d. Zoning: C-1 e. Dimensions: Rectangular f. Area: 72,310 SF g. Sale Date: 10/04/2018 h. Price: $300,000 i. Instrument Type: Deed j. Terms: Cash to Seller k. Ex.Tax# or AF #: 60123 l. Seller: GESA Credit Union m. Buyer: Jesus Higareda Diaz n. Confirmed with: Jesus Higareda Diaz, 509.546.0764 o. Confirmed by: Jim Lingeman p. Date Inspected: 7/19/2019 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 119451308 (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This site is located along W. Sylvester Street in Pasco, WA. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. B.) Confirmation Data and Comments: Purchased to hold for development. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION VALUE MARKET UNIT Land: 72,310 SF $ 300,000 $ 4.15/SF $ $ $ $ Buildings: None $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ 300,000 $ 4.15/SF Page 105 of 186 Comparable L-4 Page 106 of 186 MARKET DATA L-5 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: NWC of E. B Street and S. Myrtle Avenue, Pasco, WA (2) SALE SKETCH AND PHOTO ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE; (3) a. Access: S. Myrtle Avenue b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Industrial/Commercial Development d. Zoning: I-1 e. Dimensions: Rectangular f. Area: 18,750 SF g. Sale Date: 08/07/2018 h. Price: $62,500 i. Instrument Type: Deed j. Terms: Cash to Seller k. Ex.Tax# or AF #: 59370 l. Seller: Berta Diaz (Etal.) m. Buyer: Carlos & Maria Borquez n. Confirmed with: Carlos Borquez, 509.380.5089 o. Confirmed by: Jim Lingeman p. Date Inspected: 7/19/2019 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 112341378 & 341387 (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This site is located at the NWC of E. B Street and S. Myrtle Avenue in Pasco, WA. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. B.) Confirmation Data and Comments: Buyer has plans to build. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION VALUE MARKET UNIT Land: 18,750 SF $ 62,500 $ 3.33/SF $ $ $ $ Buildings: None $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ 62,500 $ 3.33/SF Page 107 of 186 Comparable L-5 Page 108 of 186 MARKET DATA L-6 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: N. Commercial Avenue, Pasco, WA (2) SALE SKETCH AND PHOTO ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE; (3) a. Access: N. Commercial Avenue b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Commercial/Industrial dev. d. Zoning: I-1 e. Dimensions: Rectangular f. Area: 91,911 SF g. Sale Date: 05/02/2018 h. Price: $185,000 i. Instrument Type: Deed j. Terms: Cash to Seller k. Ex.Tax# or AF #: 58526 l. Seller: City of Pasco m. Buyer: Desert Plateau Transport Inc. n. Confirmed with: Saul Martinez, 509.547.7285 o. Confirmed by: Jim Lingeman p. Date Inspected: 7/19/2019 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 113520327 (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This site is located along N. Commercial Avenue, in Pasco, WA. The site is rectangular in shape with generally level topography. B.) Confirmation Data and Comments: Buyer purchased for an investment and possible expansion of existing business. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION VALUE MARKET UNIT Land: 91,911 SF $ 185,000 $ 2.01/SF $ $ $ $ Buildings: None $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ 185,000 $ 2.01/SF Page 109 of 186 Comparable L-6 Page 110 of 186 1 jim@lvcnw.com From:Sharman, Tim <Tim.Sharman@am.jll.com> Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 3:07 PM To:jim@lvcnw.com Subject:RE: City of Pasco Overpass project - Appraisal Jim, I don’t need to be with you so go ahead at your schedule to perform the appraisal. Thanks. ________________________________________________________ EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, PLEASE SEND ALL MAIL TO THE ADDRESS BELOW Tim Sharman Vice President Jones Lang LaSalle 225 108th Ave NE, Suite 550 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel + 1-206-748-9420 From: jim@lvcnw.com [mailto:jim@lvcnw.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 11:48 AM To: Sharman, Tim <Tim.Sharman@am.jll.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] City of Pasco Overpass project - Appraisal Mr. Sharman, I am the appraiser that has been retained to conduct the valuation of the acquisitions. I am reaching out via email as well as the voicemail I have already left. I need to set a time ad day to physically inspect the proposed acquisitions on the BNSF property. Please let me know what works for you to discuss logistics and answer any questions. Thank you Respectfully, Jim Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Lingeman Valuation & Consulting Page 111 of 186 2 PO Box 823267 Vancouver, WA 98682 360.909.0855 Certified General Appraiser WA/OR Certified SBE www.lvcnw.com Jeremiah 29:11 - “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. JLL Logo One of the 2019 World’s Most Ethical Companies® Jones Lang LaSalle For more information about how JLL processes your personal data, please click here. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. Page 112 of 186 Page 1 of 7 Pages Washington State Department of Transportation DETERMINATION OF VALUE NO. 1 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Rail Corridor Owner: BNSF Railway Company Federal Aid No. STPUS HLP #3530(006) Project: City of Pasco Lewis St Overpass Project TO: Map Sheet 1 & 3 of 4 Sheets FROM: Brian Vincent, MAI, AI-GRS Review Appraiser Map Approval Date: 7/17/19 Date of last map revision: N/A The following appraisals have been made on subject property: DATE OF BEFORE AFTER VALUE APPRAISER'S ALLOCATION APPRAISER VALUATION VALUE VALUE DIFFERENCE TAKING DAMAGES 1. James E. Lingeman, 7/19/19 $300,610 $-0- SR/WA, ASA, IFAS The following prior determinations of value have been made on the subject property: DATE OF REVIEWER VALUATION APPRAISER PRIOR DV DV AMOUNT 1. Brian Vincent, MAI, AI-GRS 7/19/19 Brian Vincent N/A $300,610 Reviewers inspection and analysis: List buildings, structures, fixtures and improvements to be acquired. Explain variances, if any, between reviewer's findings and appraisal(s ). Use back if needed. State General Certified appraiser James Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS has prepared a partial acquisition narrative appraisal for a BNSF Railway Corridor located in Pasco, WA for the City of Pasco Lewis Street Overpass Project. I am qualified by education and experience to perform this appraisal review competently. The report was signed on September 23, 2019 and received for review on September 24, 2019. I inspected the subject property and the comparable sales on August 12, 2019. My review is based on the original date of value of July 19, 2019, and sales after this date were not researched or considered. Appraisal Problem The appraisal problem consists of determining the values of the subject property considering the easement acquisitions. There are 5 different easement types, both temporary and permanent, needed for this overpass project. The subject property is unique as it is part of a railroad corridor and creates a special appraisal method. The appraisal reflects the “across the fence” method whereby values of similarly zoned parcels are determined an applied to the subject. A small section of the corridor was determined to be the Larger Parcel by the appraiser. Area sales were presented and analyzed and used as the basis for land value. Easement areas were introduced and described, and value evidence was presented for the rights to be acquired. Using the base unit value and easement ratios, values were determined and presented correctly. This method and results are judged as being credible. Subject Description The subject property is a portion of a large railroad corridor serving this Southeast Washington area. The actual size is noted as 173,994.10 sf but should be 182,072.6 sf. This was confirmed to be a typographical error by the appraiser. This reflects the area directly affected by the project. The shape of the area is mostly rectangular, however there are irregular north/south extensions. Access can be made from the west and east, though most of the area is fenced. Site improvements track bed, rail, other rail equipment and fencing. All site improvements affected, if any, will be cured as a part of the project and no compensation is needed. The property is zoned Light Industrial by the City of Pasco. Utilities in the area are normally served services. The subject is not identified as a county parcel. Larger Parcel The appraisal does include a determination of the larger parcel which is the area affected by the acquisition. This is a credible determination given the across the fence value methodology. No other areas of the corridor are being affected and therefore are no damages. The corridor will operate similarly both before and after the project. Page 113 of 186 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Page 2 of 7 Pages Hypothetical Condition/Extraordinary Assumptions The appraisal correctly uses a Hypothetical Condition which assumes in the after situation that the project is complete. It also disregards any decrease or increase in value caused by the project. Both of these conditions are applicable. Acquisition The acquisition is a partial acquisition of both permanent and temporary easement rights only. No Fee land is being acquired. It is my understanding that the railroad will be able to operate their corridor and track in a similar fashion as prior to the project. Needed for the project are five separate easements summarized as follows: Permanent Aerial, Bridge Inspection, & Maintenance Easement 38,260.49 sf Permanent Pier Easement 4,680 sf Temporary Construction Easement 124,187.79 sf Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit Area 7,373.50 sf Permanent 15’ Access Easement (Bridge Maintenance and Inspection) 7,570.86 sf It is my understanding that these easements do no overlap and that each is a net area. This was confirmed by Travis Marden of JUB Engineers. The Permanent Aerial, Bridge Inspection and Maintenance easement is needed for the construction, maintenance and inspection of the new bridge/overpass. This easement is assumed to allow the City of Pasco the right to enter, build, maintain, and inspect all structures associated with the overpass. It includes the bridge and piers and as such has a ground component. Page 114 of 186 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Page 3 of 7 Pages The permanent pier easement is for the structural placement and use of the piers to support the bridge. The TCE is described as a temporary use of other areas to construct the bridge and will run until June 30, 2022 or 36 months from the date of value. After which time all rights revert to the owner. The temporary track crossing easement and permit area is at the north end of the TCE area and needed to cross the tracks during construction. It ends on June 30, 2022. The permanent 15’ access easement is needed for vehicular access to the underside of the bridge for maintenance and inspection. This is believed to be a non-exclusive easement to be used by the Railroad when not used by the city. The appraisal briefly describes the easements as written, but offers little analysis as to the rights actually transferred. It is assumed that the rights appraised are similar to the rights to be acquired. It is my understanding there will be an overarching easement document/agreement that provides the detailed rights to be acquired. No such document was prepared as of the date of appraisal and therefore we assume, the rights acquired are the rights appraised. The appraisal uses the Jurisdictional Exception rule as allowed in USPAP as needed for the elimination of reporting exposure and marketing time and any increase or decrease in value due to the project has been disregarded. Highest and Best Use was described and properly analyzed resulting in assemblage with the neighboring properties and put to an industrial/commercial use. Value Before The valuation method used is called the “across the fence” technique in which land sales in the area are selected and analyzed with the subject to determine a base unit value. This is a reasonable approach based on the appraisal matter at hand. Six land sales were analyzed using and all were representative of comparable properties. All were correctly summarized in the table, map and write-ups. Sales were analyzed and compared with the subject and a unit value was selected within the reported range. The range went from a low of $2.01 p/sf (6) to a high of $6.40 p/sf (2). A unit rate of $5.25 p/sf was concluded and judged as credible. Proposed Acquisition The overall history of the project was described including acquisition of other parcels. Noted here is the fact that the project will provide substantial expansion opportunities for BNSF Railway. On page 19 a description of each of the easements was presented and each correctly identified the correct measured area. The date of the TCE was reported here incorrectly as if ending December 21, 2021 and should be stated as ending June 30, 2022. Other areas of the report have this date shown correctly. Actual easement rights acquired are assumed to materially match those described in this report. Page 115 of 186 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Page 4 of 7 Pages Acquisition Valuation Each easement is considered and described beginning on page 19 with the Permanent Aerial Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement. Missing from the title, though small, is the comma after the word aerial and should be included. It should read as Permanent Aerial, Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement. With the comma, it signifies three items and infers that inspection and maintenance can happen from the ground. Without the comma it reads as an aerial easement only. It has been confirmed in the appraisal that the easement does include a ground component allowing for access. Two sources of value evidence were used and included the WSDOT/RR policy and an article from the IRWA regarding discounts for various easements. A discussion of the bundle of rights was used and that the city will be acquiring a portion of the bundle and warranting value. A rate of 45% was selected based on the aerial and ground nature of this easement which is supported by logic and reasoning. The value of $90,390 reasonably represents the actual rights to be transferred. Permanent Pier Easement This easement is described and analyzed based on the proper size of 4,680 sf. The appraisal assumes that the City will have access to these pier easements with permission from BNSF. Access to the pier easements will be provided from the easement noted above. Value is based on a loss of essentially the entire bundle of rights and stated as 100% and judged as reasonable based on a physical encumbrance which will restrict BNSF use of the area. The value of $24,570 is correctly determined. $5.25 p/sf. X 4,680 sf X 100% = $24,570 Permanent Access Easement/Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 and No. 2) This easement is correctly described in terms of location and size. Not shown here is the exclusivity of the easement. It is my understanding that this easement is non-exclusive and that it will likely be used only intermittently when inspections occur. The appraiser is aware of this and concluded 50% of the bundle of rights as valuation which is reasonable. This was based upon logic and reasoning presented. 7,570.86 sf X $5.25 p/sf X 50% = $19,875 rounded Temporary Construction Easement The TCE is described correctly in terms of size but narratively misses a small leg of the easement lying south of the existing Lewis Street underpass. This is not material in terms of value. The TCE timeframe is correctly described as 36 months running from the date of value to June 30, 2022. It is important to include a statement that any disturbance of the area during the TCE time frame will be cured and that the site will be returned to existing or better condition than found prior to the contract. If it won’t be returned to that condition additional compensation may be needed. The TCE is valued based on a short-term land lease whereby an annual rate of return is determined. A range of 6-12% is shown with little evidence of where the rates came from. A rate of 8% was selected with no reasoning. I have collected rents from many municipalities who pay 8-10% on short term lease rates so the resulting selected rate is reasonable. The noted compensation of $156,480 is reasonable. $5.25 p/sf. X 124,187.79 sf X 8% X 3 years = $156,480 (rnd) Page 116 of 186 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Page 5 of 7 Pages Temporary Track Crossing Easement and Permit This area is properly described as measuring 7,373,50 sf and running east/west along the Clark Street extended. It will run for 36 months ending 6/30/2022. Not described here are the rights of use during this period, or if the property will be restored. It is assumed that the rights acquired match what is reasonably represented and that the property will be restored. Values is based on the short-term lease rate as in the TCE area with additional support from the bond market. A rate of return of 8% was used and judged as reasonable. With the added explanation, the value of $9,295 is reasonable. $5.25 p/sf X 7,373.50 X 8% X 3 years = $9,295 (rnd). Damages and Special Benefits Damages and Special Benefits were considered however none were noted. The subject retains many of the same rights of operation as prior to the project. Recapitulation Permanent Aerial, Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Easement $ 90,390 Permanent Pier Easement $ 24,570 Permanent Access Easement/ Bridge Access and Inspection 15’ (No. 1 and No. 2) $ 19,875 Temporary Construction Easement $156,480 Temporary Track Crossing and Easement Permit $ 9,295 Damages/Special Benefits $ - 0 - Total $300,610 Just Compensation is $300,610 The market conclusions are reasonable and fit the evidence. The cost and income approaches were not applied as this is a land valuation problem. This review is subject to the "SALIENT INFORMATION" and "ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS" statements found in the appraisal report, along with the assumptions and limiting conditions found in this review. This is considered a field review with the reviewer inspection of the subject and comparable sales occurring on August 12, 2019. Page 117 of 186 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Page 6 of 7 Pages REVIEWER'S DETERMINATION OF VALUE (This Review): Reviewer's allocation of just compensation: VALUE BEFORE ACQUISITION N/A Acquisition $300,610 VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION N/A Damages $-0- JUST COMPENSATION $ 300,610 AS OF July 19, 2019 (Date) I, the review appraiser, certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The facts and data reported by the review appraiser and used in the review process are true and correct. 2. The analyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this review report, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions i n, or the use of, this review report. 5. I have made the appraisal review and prepared this report in conformity with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition 6. I have made the appraisal review and prepared this report in conformity with the Appraisal Foundation’s Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), except to the extent that the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions required invocation of USPAP’s Jurisdictional Exception Rule, as describ ed in Section D-1 of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. 7. I did personally inspect the subject property of the report and comparable sales under review. 8. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this review report. 9. I have not provided services regarding the subject property in the last three years preceding this assignment. I further certify that I understand that if the determination is to be used in conjunction with a Federal aid highway project or other federally funded project, and because of items compensable under State law, but not eligible for Federal reimbursement, none of the approved just compensation is ineligible for Federal reimbursement. Washington State-certified general real estate appraiser Signature Certificate number: 1101562 Review Appraiser Date September 25, 2019 ACQUIRING AGENCY CONCURRENCE AND AUTHORIZATION: The of (Agency) does hereby indicate the concurrence with the estimate of Just Compensation discussed above and does authorize further action by (Agency) to proceed with the acquisition of the designated property according to established procedures. _______________________ ________________________________________________________ (date) City of Pasco, Signing Authority Page 118 of 186 Parcel No. 100 BNSF Page 7 of 7 Pages ADDENDA Appraisal Review Information: Client: Universal Field Services Intended User: Universal Field Services and City of Pasco Intended Use/Purpose: Assist with determining just compensation for a road right of way project. Date of Review: September 25, 2019 Rights Appraised: Easement Rights from the Fee Simple Interest Purpose of Review: The purpose of this review is to determine if the appraisal conducted was appropriate and consistent with peer recognized analysis and completed accurately utilizing appropriate appraisal standards and satisfies the intended use. The date of the review is September 25, 2019. Assumptions and limiting conditions: 1. This review report is based on data and information contained in the appraisal report that is the subject of this review and on additional information from appropriate sources. 2. It is assumed that the data and information are factual and accurate. Use of this assumption can lead to varying assignment results. 3. The review appraiser reserves the right to consider any additional data or information that may subsequently become available and to revise the opinions and conclusions in this report if such data and information indicate the need for such a change. 4. All of the assumptions and limiting conditions contained in the appraisal report, that is the subject of this review, are also conditions to this review unless otherwise stated. Scope of Work The scope of work in this assignment included a conversation with Kristi Butterfield of Universal Field Services who were contracted by the City of Pasco, WA. We discussed the project and the need for a determination of value. It was agreed that this review is designed to determine whether the appraisal was completed to the correct standards, provides proper analysis, and forms a credible opinion of value. I read the report, investigated certain subject information, and assessor records. I spoke with the appraiser prior to and during the review to understand basic concepts of the appraisal problem and seek clarification. I have researched the sales details, and all were consistent with public records. I inspected each of the sales and the subject. I did not confirm the sales with market participants. I reviewed the report to ensure math calculations are correct and that the level of detail and analysis is consistent and appropriate. I did not verify or validate the topography or research the geotechnical aspects of the subject or sale properties. All factual information not otherwise verified is assumed to be correct. Use of this assumption can lead to varying assignment results. Appraisal Under Review Information: Appraiser: James E. Lingeman, SR/WA, ASA, IFAS Effective Date of Appraisal: July 19, 2019 Date of Report: September 9, 2019 Client: Universal Field Services and City of Pasco Ownership Interest: Fee Simple Extraordinary Assumptions: None used Hypothetical Conditions: Assumed project complete, disregarded increase or decrease in value prior to project. Value Before Acquisition: N/A Value After Acquisition: N/A Compensation: $300,610 Page 119 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 15, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director Finance SUBJECT: 2020 Ad Valorem Tax Levy I. REFERENCE(S): Exhibit A General Fund Revenue Overview 2020 Property Tax Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Sets the City share of the property tax rate. The impact to the General Fund is dependant on the option selected. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: As part of the annual budget process, per RCW 84.55.120, cities are required to conduct a public hearing on General Fund revenue sources for the coming year's budget, including possible increases in property tax revenues. Following the revenue hearing, Council may choose to pass an ordinance at the same meeting authorizing the property tax levy for the ensuing year, consistent with statutory limitations. State statue limits the property tax rate the City can levy to $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Other general fund revenue includes sales tax, fees and charges, utility taxes, fines and forfeitures, and transfers. Property tax; however, requires a public hearing and vote separate from the budget and is the primary focus of this narrative. Revenues generated through the City property tax levy represent a major source of funding for essential government services such as police, fire, parks, community Page 120 of 186 development, finance, administration, as well as a significant portion of streets and other services deemed necessary by the Council through the budget process. In 2001, the voters approved Initiative 747 (I-747) limiting the amount taxing districts could increase the total property tax levy over the previous year by the lesser of 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) without voter approval. In November 2007, that initiative was challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the Washington State Supreme Court; the Court's ruling returned the limit to the lesser of 6% or IPD. The Legislature subsequently placed into law those limits suggested by I-747. The current legal limit is the lesser of 1% or IPD, meaning that the City could increase the total property tax levy for 2020 by as much as 1% over 2019. The IPD differs significantly from a regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) in that, unlike the CPI, the IPD is not based on a fixed basket of goods and services in a region. The IPD basket spans the nation and is based on changes from year to year with people's consumption and investment patterns. The IPD figure for the 2020 tax calculation is 1.0%. As final tax levy data has yet to be issued by the Franklin County Assessor’s Office, including information on any increases to State-assessed utilities, the calculations provided herein are estimates. Furthermore, because the Assessor’s Office is not allowed to set the levy to exceed what is shown in the City’s budget, the information provided for both the estimated calculations and the rounded amount will be utilized for presentation in the budget. V. DISCUSSION: CITY PROPERTY TAX LEVY OPTIONS FOR 2019 For 2020, the Franklin County Assessor has provided a preliminary City assessed valuation of $6,051,973,736, which will be used as the basis to calculate the 2020 property taxes. This amount includes new construction of $199,557,200 and an estimated State-assessed utility of $10,000. Please refer to Exhibit A for a chart regarding the options below. Option A reflects an estimated increase of $397,024 over the 2019 levy amount. The proposed increase is derived mostly from an increase in assessed valuati on due to new construction in 2019. This option forgoes the statutorily allowed 1.0% increase in the City property tax levy, an increase of $106,673, and instead would bank the capacity for future needs. The effect of the new construction adds to the overall assessed valuation of the City, which in turn serves to reduce the levy rate for 2020 by $0.111 from the $1.939 per $1,000 of assessed valuation in 2019 to $1.828 in 2020. Option B depicts the amount the City would collect if the Council chose to ad opt the Page 121 of 186 statutorily allowed 1.0% increase, plus an estimated increase due to new construction and annexation in 2019. This alternative would decrease the levy rate for 2020 by $0.094 per $1,000 of assessed valuation from $1.939 in 2019 to $1.846 in 2020. The 2019-2020 adopted budget was prepared using an estimated property tax levy of $10,987,008. This amount is lower than estimated tax levy to account for delinquencies. Council has historically based property tax levy decisions on current and future needs. In 2019, the Council chose to use tax levy capacity banked from prior years to fund major capital infrastructure investments like Fire Stations 83 and 84 and Community Center. 2019-2020 adopted budget assumes $10,987,008 as 2020 property tax revenue and staff expects City to meet the adopted budget revenue for General Fund during the same year. STATUTORY DEADLINE FOR PROPERTY TAX DETERMINATION Finally, for the Franklin County Assessor to levy property taxes, the City is required to certify property tax levies with the County by November 30th of each year. RECOMMENDATION In consideration of the above noted factors and conditions, staff will be recommending that the Council select Option A; forgoing the statutorily allowed 1% increase in the City's property tax levy and instead banking that capacity for potential use in the future. Page 122 of 186 OPTION A OPTION B2019 Levy $10,667,334 $10,667,334 $10,667,334Implict Price Deflator (IPD) $106,673Increase in State Utility AV (Estimate) $10,000 $10,000New Construction $387,024 $387,024Total Levy Amount$10,667,334 $11,064,358 $11,171,031Tax Levy Rate 1.939 1.828 1.846Rate Change from Current 2019 Levy- (0.111) (0.094) Cost per $1,000 on a $230,000 AV Home $446 $420 $425Net Change ($26) ($22)General Fund Levy OptionsCurrent 2019 Tax LevyNo Increase + New Construction 1.0 (IPD) Increase + New Construction Page 123 of 186 2019 Adopted Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget General Property Tax 10,561,963 10,606,963 10,987,008 10,987,008 Retail Sales Tax 15,352,183 15,500,000 15,771,026 15,771,026 Utility Tax 9,583,525 9,590,000 9,725,394 9,725,394 Other Tax 1,216,350 1,178,882 1,221,400 1,221,400 Sub-Total Taxes 36,714,021 36,875,845 37,704,828 37,704,828 Fees & Charges Administrative Charge Back 3,102,166 3,100,000 3,252,344 3,252,344 Engineering Services 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Public Safety Services 1,347,089 1,374,000 1,373,239 1,373,239 Zoning, Plan Check & Sepa Fees 417,500 418,000 417,500 417,500 Other Misc Revenues 1,078,041 1,078,000 1,081,139 1,081,139 Municipal Court 174,000 150,000 174,000 174,000 Sub-Total Fees & Charges 7,618,796 7,620,000 7,798,222 7,798,222 Intergovernmental Revenues State & County 801,000 820,000 808,000 825,000 Liquor Board Profits 600,494 600,500 604,949 604,949 Liquor Excise Tax 378,253 389,000 397,516 397,516 Federal Direct Grants 504,164 504,000 373,464 373,464 Criminal Justice 104,499 104,000 110,129 110,129 Other 27,700 27,700 27,700 27,700 Sub-Total Intergovernmental Revenues 2,416,110 2,445,200 2,321,758 2,338,758 Licenses & Permits Business Licenses 636,000 680,000 636,000 700,000 Building Permits 1,350,000 1,470,000 1,350,000 1,400,000 Animal Licenses 222,000 220,000 222,000 222,000 Other 21,500 23,000 21,500 24,000 Sub-Total Licenses & Permits 2,229,500 2,393,000 2,229,500 2,346,000 Fines & Forefeits Traffic & Non Traffic Penalty 800,000 740,000 800,000 900,000 Other 105,600 107,650 105,600 105,600 Sub-Total Fines & Forefeits 905,600 847,650 905,600 1,005,600 Other Sources Bond Proceeds 17,250,000 17,250,000 - - Rent 319,350 320,000 320,550 320,550 Transfer in 227,600 228,600 227,600 227,600 Interest 200,000 263,000 210,000 310,000 Other* 72,750 830,500 73,150 73,150 Sub-Total Other Sources 18,069,700 18,892,100 831,300 931,300 Total General Fund Revenue 67,953,727 69,073,795 51,791,208 52,124,708 Revenue Excluding Bond Proceeds 50,703,727 51,823,795 51,791,208 52,124,708 *Other category includes $645K revenue from sale of assets. Summary - General Fund Revenue Sources by Category 2% 19% 30% 21% 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 6% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Page 124 of 186 10/18/2019 1 2019 Mid Biennium Adjustment2019 Mid Biennium Adjustment Property Tax Levy and General Fund Revenue Ad Valorem Tax •Under state law, no local government may increase its property tax levy more than 1% in a given year, and local governments with a population of 10,000 or more are limited to the lesser of 1% or the rate of inflation (Implicit Price Deflator) •Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) for 2019 is 1.396% •IPD is an economic metric that accounts for inflation by converting output measured at current prices into constant-dollar GDP. This specific deflator shows how much a change in the base year's GDP relies upon changes in the price level Page 125 of 186 10/18/2019 2 Assessed Valuation Trend Banked Capacity • Banked capacity is accrued when local governments forego yearly increases to property taxes • If no current need, City has historically banked its levy capacity for future purposes • City used all of its banked capacity in 2019 to fund major infrastructure investments like relocation of Fire Station Page 126 of 186 10/18/2019 3 OPTION A OPTION B 2019 Levy $10,667,334 $10,667,334 $10,667,334 Implict Price Deflator (IPD) $106,673 Increase in State Utility AV (Estimate) $10,000 $10,000 New construction $387,024 $387,024 Total Levy Amount $10,667,334 $11,064,358 $11,171,031 Tax Levy Rate 1.939 1.828 1.846 Rate Change from Current 2019 Levy - (0.111) (0.094) Cost per $1,000 on a $230,000 AV Home $446 $420 $425 Net Change ($26) ($22) General Fund Levy Options Current 2019 Tax Levy No Increase + New Construction 1.0 (IPD) Increase + New Construction Comparison (2019 Data) General Rate Total Rate* Tax Collection City of Richland 2.436$ 2.721$ 18,921,267$ City of Kennewick 1.989$ 1.989$ 13,190,307$ City of Pasco 1.939$ 1.939$ 10,667,334$ *Includes voted bonds Cost per $1,000 on a $230,000 AV Home City of Richland 560$ City of Kennewick 458$ City of Pasco 446$ Page 127 of 186 10/18/2019 4 Property Tax Trend – Option A Property Tax Trend – Option B Page 128 of 186 10/18/2019 5 General Fund Revenue Sources 2019 Adopted Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget General Property Tax 10,561,963 10,606,963 10,987,008 10,987,008 Retail Sales Tax 15,352,183 15,500,000 15,771,026 15,771,026 Utility Tax 9,583,525 9,590,000 9,725,394 9,725,394 Other Tax 1,216,350 1,178,882 1,221,400 1,221,400 Sub-Total Taxes 36,714,021 36,875,845 37,704,828 37,704,828 2% 19% 30% 21% General Fund Revenue Sources – Property Tax Page 129 of 186 10/18/2019 6 Where does your property tax go? General Fund Revenue Sources – Sales Tax Page 130 of 186 10/18/2019 7 Sales Tax Rates Breakdown of Sales Tax Rate 2019 Rates State 6.5% City/County (85%/15%) 1.0% Transit 0.6% Public Safety* 0.3% Criminal Justice** 0.1% Juvenile Detention 0.1% Total 8.6% *RCW 82.14.450; 60% is retained by counties, remaining 40% is allocated to cities on a per capita basis **RCW 82.14.340; County receives 10% of tax proceeds; remaining 90% is distributed to cities and unincorporated areas based on population Where do Your  Sales Tax  Come From? Page 131 of 186 10/18/2019 8 General Fund Revenue Sources – Utility Tax General Fund Revenue Sources 2019 Adopted Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget Fees & Charges Administrative Charge Back 3,102,166 3,100,000 3,252,344 3,252,344 Engineering Services 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Public Safety Services 1,347,089 1,374,000 1,373,239 1,373,239 Zoning, Plan Check & Sepa Fees 417,500 418,000 417,500 417,500 Other Misc Revenues 1,078,041 1,078,000 1,081,139 1,081,139 Municipal Court 174,000 150,000 174,000 174,000 Sub-Total Fees & Charges 7,618,796 7,620,000 7,798,222 7,798,222 0% 1% 2% 3% 3% 6% Page 132 of 186 10/18/2019 9 General Fund Revenue Sources – Administrative Services General Fund Revenue Sources – Engineering Services Page 133 of 186 10/18/2019 10 General Fund Revenue Sources – Public Safety Services General Fund Revenue Sources – Intergovernmental 2019 Adopted Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget Intergovernmental Revenues State & County 801,000 820,000 808,000 825,000 Liquor Board Profits 600,494 600,500 604,949 604,949 Liquor Excise Tax 378,253 389,000 397,516 397,516 Federal Direct Grants 504,164 504,000 373,464 373,464 Criminal Justice 104,499 104,000 110,129 110,129 Other 27,700 27,700 27,700 27,700 Sub-Total Intergovernmental Revenues 2,416,110 2,445,200 2,321,758 2,338,758 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% Page 134 of 186 10/18/2019 11 General Fund Revenue Sources – Public Utility District (PUD) Privilege Tax General Fund Revenue Sources – Liquor Board Profits & Excise Tax Page 135 of 186 10/18/2019 12 General Fund Revenue Sources – Grants General Fund Revenue Sources – Licenses & Permits 2019 Adopted Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget Licenses & Permits Business Licenses 636,000 680,000 636,000 700,000 Building Permts 1,350,000 1,470,000 1,350,000 1,400,000 Animal Licenses 222,000 220,000 222,000 222,000 Other 21,500 23,000 21,500 24,000 Sub-Total Licenses & Permits 2,229,500 2,393,000 2,229,500 2,346,000 0% 0% 3% 1% Page 136 of 186 10/18/2019 13 General Fund Revenue Sources – Building Permit General Fund Revenue Sources – Business License Page 137 of 186 10/18/2019 14 General Fund Revenue Sources – Animal License General Fund Revenue Sources – Fines & Forfeits 2019 Proposed Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Proposed Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget Fines & Forefeits Traffic & Non Traffic Penalty 800,000 740,000 800,000 900,000 Other 105,600 107,650 105,600 105,600 Sub-Total Fines & Forefeits 905,600 847,650 905,600 1,005,600 0% 2% Page 138 of 186 10/18/2019 15 General Fund Revenue Sources – Fines & Forfeits General Fund Revenue Sources *Other category includes $645K revenue from sale of assets. 2019 Adopted Budget 2019 Estimate 2020 Adopted Budget 2020 Proposed Amended Budget Other Sources Bond Proceeds 17,250,000 17,250,000 - - Rent 319,350 320,000 320,550 320,550 Transfer in 227,600 228,600 227,600 227,600 Interest 200,000 263,000 210,000 310,000 Other* 72,750 830,500 73,150 73,150 Sub-Total Other Sources 18,069,700 18,892,100 831,300 931,300 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Page 139 of 186 10/18/2019 16 Summary •City’s assessed valuation has increased by 54% since 2016 •Staff recommends Council reserve 1% property tax levy for future purposes •The recommended option results in property tax rate of $1.828 per $1,000 Assessed Valuation •Review of major General Fund revenue sources Page 140 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council August 8, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Bid Award: Irrigation Pump Station Project I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Bid Tabulation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to award the PWRF Irrigation Pump Station project to Apollo, Inc. in the amount of $8,048,615.76, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the contract documents. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Fund 460 (PWRF) - Revenue bond: $8,048,615.76 (to be reimbursed by Processors) IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Irrigation Pump Station (IPS) is a critical component to the operation of the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF). The purpose of the IPS is to pump partially treated wastewater from the PWRF storage/detention ponds to the City-owned farm fields for reuse and finishing (final treatment). The existing IPS has well exceeded its useful life cycle, having to operate beyond its intended design capacity and unable to reliably meet current or future needs. Per Council’s prior direction as outlined in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, City Council Goals, and the 2019/2020 biennial budget, City staff have been focused on planning and design of improvements to the PWRF that will assure its reliability into the future, cost-effectiveness, support of the important Ag related industrial users and the thousands of employees relying on the facility for current and future operations. Page 141 of 186 Design of the IPS was performed by PACE Engineers simultaneously with the development of the PWRF Facility Plan. Not surprisingly, the existing pump station was identified as an immediate need for the facility, and is in staff’s opinion, the highest priority project necessary at the PWRF. V. DISCUSSION: On August 8, 2019, the City received five (5) bids for the project. The lowest responsive bid was received from Apollo, Inc. in the amount of $8,048,615.76. The Engineer's Estimate was $7,604,101.80, approximately 6% less than the low bid. This is a complex project involving several variables that bidders had to consider, staff is satisfied that the low bid represents a fair price given the scope of the project and associated risks to the contractor. Staff have reviewed the bid submittal and have found no exceptions or irregularities. The low bid is within budget and reasonably within range of the estimate. Accordingly, staff recommend award of the contract to Apollo, Inc., Kennewick, Washington. Page 142 of 186 115 MG8 MG35 MGSOLIDS PONDSCREENS BUILDINGEXISTING IPSCLARIFIERPROPOSED IPS LOCATIONACCESS ROADN~ RESERVED FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE ~ Page 143 of 186 ‘H:Page 144 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 15, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/21/19 FROM: Angela Pashon, Policy Analyst Executive SUBJECT: Tourism Promotion Area I. REFERENCE(S): 2020 Budget and Marketing Plan 2020 TPA Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the 2020 Marketing Plan and Operating Budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of $1,614,181. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) was formed in late 2004 to generate and administer the proceeds of a "per room night assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri -Cities, imposed by the hotels themselves. The interlocal agreement (between the Cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland) that created the TPA requires the annual budget and expenditure from the reserve account for the TPA to be approved by the City Council. The Budget Summary for 2020 is attached. V. DISCUSSION: The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the state which, in turn, distributes it to the city in which is was collected. The City’s approval of the funds to the TPA, for use in accordance with the approved budget is required. Michael Novacavich, President/CEO of Visit Tri-Cities presented the proposed TPA budget at the October 14 Workshop. Council may approve the 2020 TPA Marketing Plan and Operating Budget or indicate changes Page 145 of 186 necessary to gain approval. Staff recommends approval of the TPA budget as presented. Page 146 of 186 TRI-CITIES REGIONAL HOTEL-MOTEL COMMISSION MARKETING PLAN x x p YEARS Est. 1969 ADVANCE 2020VISIT TRI-CITIES Page 147 of 186 MISSION To promote, market and sell the region as a preferred destination to visitors. We will develop incremental visitation by promoting our destination products, programs and activities; the overall economic vitality of our communities and the quality of life for our citizens. VISION To be an industry leader for destination marketing in the Pacific Northwest; the primary source of visitor information and the lead advocate for visitor industry development in the Tri-Cities region. Please Note: The attached document reflects only those programs and costs associated with Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) funding. Visit TRI-CITIES manages many other aspects of tourism development, which are funded by hotel and lodging taxes and membership investment. Such programs include, Rivershore Enhancement, Media Outreach, Visitor Services and Member Development. Page 148 of 186 Please Note: The attached document reflects only those programs and costs associated with Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) funding. Visit TRI-CITIES manages many other aspects of tourism development, which are funded by hotel and lodging taxes and membership investment. Such programs include, Rivershore Enhancement, Media Outreach, Visitor Services and Member Development. 2020 TOURISM PROMOTION AREA MARKETING PLAN Prepared by Visit Tri-Cities For: City of Kennewick City of Pasco City of Richland Page 149 of 186 PRESIDENT & CEO message It is with great pleasure that we present Advance 2020, Visit Tri-Cities Destination Marketing plan for use of Tourism Promotion Area funds. Advance 2020 provides a detailed overview of the state of our industry, a competitive analysis and our planned endeavors to drive economic impact through visitor spending. This plan highlights the strategies we will deploy in 2020 to grow our meetings & conventions business, sports events and leisure travel through tourism development. Our tourism development strategies support all of our sales endeavors as well as aid our corporate partners with their recruitment and retention activities. Thanks to the collaborative partnerships we enjoy in our community and the exceptional work done by our team, tourism continues to be a significant sector of the Tri-Cities economy. Visitor spending this past year exceeded the half-billion-dollar mark. $560 million to be exact. These dollars along with associated visitor-generated tax revenues help fund a more thriving and vibrant Tri-Cities by financially supporting a safe, educated, employed and beautiful community with many amenities for all to enjoy. Our entire team at Visit Tri-Cities looks forward to growing our community-wide impact in 2020 by increasing our reach geographically, targeting new groups of visitors with an enhanced suite of marketing tools and creating more personalized experiences for visitors to our region. The Tri-Cities region is an amazing place. As outlined in the following Destination Marketing Plan, we plan to share our community with visitors far and wide. Page 150 of 186 PRESIDENT & CEO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to the city managers and hoteliers that have dedicated staff time to support the Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission; these efforts have greatly contributed to the success of Visit Tri-Cities and the management of the Tourism Promotion Area. TRI-CITY REGIONAL HOTEL-MOTEL COMMISSION Kennewick Mark Blotz, Clover Island Inn Jerry Beach, SpringHill Suites by Marriott Marie Mosley, Ex Officio, City of Kennewick Pasco Monica Hammerberg, Hampton Inn & Suites Pasco / Tri-Cities Vijay Patel, A-1 Hospitality Dave Zabell, Ex Officio, City of Pasco Richland Wendy Higgins, The Lodge at Columbia Point Andrew Lucero, Courtyard by Marriott Cindy Reents, Ex Officio, City of Richland The Tourism Promotion Area is managed by Visit Tri-Cities for the City of Kennewick, City of Pasco and the City of Richland. Page 151 of 186 Page 152 of 186 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tourism 2020 Outlook 1-2 Competitive Situations Analysis 3-4 Meetings & Conventions 5-6 Sports Events 7-8 Tourism Development 9-10 Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) Funding Comparative 11-12 Appendix 13-19 Page 153 of 186 TOURISM 2020: The U.S. hotel industry, not unlike the Pacific Northwest and the Tri-Cities region, experienced a slow start in the first quarter of 2019. In June, tourism economist downgraded the year-end performance forecast for 2019 from 2.3% revenue growth to 2.0% growth. There has been a decline in consumer research for domestic travel over prior year*, but with continued growth in consumer spending and low unemployment the industry looks to remain relatively stable into 2020. *U.S. Travel Barometer 2019 Forecast 2020 Forecast Supply +1.9%+1.9% Demand +2.0%+1.7% Occupancy +0.1%-0.2% ADR +1.9%+2.2% RevPar +2.0%+1.9% 2018 2019 2020 Occupancy 65.15%66.2%66.17% NATIONAL OUTLOOK REGIONAL OUTLOOK The recent investment in new hotel projects in the Northwest may create a trickle-down effect as it relates to competition for groups (both sports and conventions) in the region. In Portland it is projected that the number of hotel rooms available will increase by 15% (1,399 rooms) over 2018 levels. The February 2020 opening of the 600 room Hyatt Regency Hotel at the Portland Convention Center will likely create more competition between Seattle and Portland and may also provide competition for the 716 room Davenport Grand and Spokane Convention Center for large regional and statewide conventions. For the first time in many years Seattle is experiencing negative growth in key performance measures. In the second quarter of 2019 Seattle hotels showed a revenue decline of 7.1% as compared to prior year. This decline was attributed to both weak occupancies (-3.3%) and declining average daily rates (-3.5%). 2019 Performance January - June OCC ADR RevPar RevPar vs Prior Year Seattle 76.0% $176.18 $133.94 -10.1% Spokane 64.3% $112.99 $72.70 +4.1% Tacoma 67.0% $108.17 $72.47 -0.2% Tri-Cities 62.3% $94.09 $58.58 +1.4% Vancouver 69.2% $110.51 $77.12 -2.5% Yakima 56.7% $97.67 $55.40 +5.7% Source: STR June 2019 Forecast Source: STR June 2019 Market Segment Report 1 Page 154 of 186 TOURISM 2020: TOURISM 2020: TRI-CITIES AREA OUTLOOK The Tri-Cities also had a slow start to 2019. February and March were particularly difficult with five weather related cancellations of sports tournaments. Second quarter has been somewhat stronger with the number of hotel rooms sold pacing flat to prior year. In March, a direct flight to Los Angeles was added and new marketing campaigns to attract the leisure traveler was launched in L.A. and Minneapolis. In August the Department of Energy announced the contracts for clean-up at Hanford would be extended into 2020, and with the award of a new contractor pending until the third quarter, it is undetermined whether it will spur more travel to the area or delay business travel for some companies. Private investment in tourism related businesses in the community continues to thrive. A 94 room Comfort Suites near Southridge in Kennewick is scheduled to open in the fall of 2019. In addition, a 99 room Courtyard by Marriott near the airport in Pasco is scheduled to open in early 2020. These new projects will later be joined by a 122 room WoodSpring Suites in South Richland by year end. With this most recent increase in hotel guest room inventory, investments in securing convention, sports and leisure travel will be paramount to maintaining healthy occupancies and revenue growth. The Tri-Cities Sports Feasibility Study, which is scheduled to be released in late 2019, will provide city partners with valuable analysis and projections for future investment in facilities that will help attract new events and more out of town visitors. Possible long term developments beyond 2020 include two new hotel projects, expansion of the convention center and the addition of an aquatics facility. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Number of Available Hotel Rooms 3,989 4,191 4,191 4,285 4,506 Increase to prior year +3.2% +5.0% +0.0% +2.2% +5.2% 2 Page 155 of 186 COMPETITIVE SITUATION ANALYSIS In order to promote the Tri-Cities as a preferred destination for group, business and leisure travelers, it is important to recognize both the strengths and challenges within our community and to set sales strategies accordingly. DESTINATION STRENGTHS u Variety of Hotels u Three Rivers u Competitive Pricing u Spor ts infrastructure Convention Center u Complimentary Parking u Positive Relationship u HAPO Center u Opportunity Funds Available Between Hotels and u Strong Sports Council Meeting Venues Convention & Sports u Less Price Sensitive u Mid-week Demand u Direct Flights From u Forecast for Hanford for Airfare and Hotels Complements Weekend Minneapolis, Denver, is Relatively Stable u Recently Expanded and Convention Groups Salt Lake City, Seattle, Tri-Cities Airport. Mesa/Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Business Travel DESTINATION CHALLENGES u Distance from Seattle u Meeting Space in u Competing Destinations u Lack of Resort-Style vs. Competition Competing Locations: u Lack of Multi-Use Hotels u L ack of Hotel Capable Yakima, Spokane and Tacoma Sports Facilities for 300+ Room Block u Guest Room Rates vs. u Number of Meeting Eastern WA Cities Rooms and Exhibit Space u Heart of Washington u Manhattan Project u Travel Writer Outreach u STEM Tourism Assets Wine Country National Historical Park u Hanford B Reactor Tours u Water2Wine Cruise u Increase in Retail and u Trail Systems u Weather u Water Recreation Restaurant Businesses u Riverfront Amenities Leisure Travel DESTINATION STRENGTHS DESTINATION CHALLENGES u Seasonal Demand u Difficult to Track u Budget Sensitive u Price of Airfare/ u Mountain Snow and u Heavy Weekend Traffic u Perceived Lack of Inconvenience of Winter Driving on Pass Family Activities Air Travel u Negative Hanford Preceptions DESTINATION STRENGTHS DESTINATION CHALLENGES u Destination Choice not u Very Dependent on u Mostly Mid-Week Travel Influenced by Outside Forces Hanford Business Trends 3 Page 156 of 186 COMPETITIVE SITUATION ANALYSIS Destination Preference/ Convenience of Location Event Cancelled/ Postponed Lost Business Analysis by Reason Lost Business Analysis by Location Spokane Wenatchee Walla Walla Yakima Other 2017 2018 2019 2020 Leads Issued Qtr 1 64 54 40 45* Qtr 2 62 66 64 65* Qtr 3 58 70 81* 80* Qtr 4 70 83 80* 80* Total 254 273 265* 270* Request for Proposal (RFP) Production Each year the Visit Tri-Cities sports and convention sales managers issue qualified leads to hotel and meeting partners. The table below outlines the production of leads by quarter, the actual arrival of the events (if they can be converted) ranges on average from one to five years in the future. * Estimated production 2017 2018 2019 2020 Leads Converted Qtr 1 49 38 34 40* Qtr 2 46 46 43 45* Qtr 3 43 46 53* 50* Qtr 4 55 72 70* 70* Total 193 202 200* 205* The table below refers to the number of sporting events and conventions booked each year, by quarter. The leads generated to initiate these converted bookings are issued one to five years prior to the event being booked. The arrival dates for these events range from taking place in the same year they are booked, to taking place five (or more) years in the future. Converted Bookings * Estimated production 40% Overall Cost 9% Type of Hotel Choice 14%19% Other 18% I-5 Corridor 24%14%4%18%18%22% 4 Page 157 of 186 MEETINGS & CONVENTIONS 2020 ACTIONS • Sales Blitz: Develop two multi-day sales blitzes events in Olympia (Spring and Fall), encourage hotel participation in Spring Blitz. • Customer Events: Organize meeting planner customer luncheon in the spring to promote the Tri-Cities as a destination. Event to be held in conjunction with the Olympia Spring Sales Blitz. • Sales Calls: Two sales trips to the greater Seattle/Puget Sound area. • Meeting Planner FAM Tours: Host qualified meeting planners for individual, customized FAM tours. • Relationships: Continue staff attendance at Washington Society of Association Executives (WSAE) and Professional Convention Management Association (PCMA) monthly/ quarterly meetings to strengthen relationship with key meeting planners. • National Trade Shows: Attend the 2020 National Tour Association Annual Convention. • Digital: With the addition of a Digital Marketing Manager we will continue to advertise campaigns through geo locating, consumer search. Economic impact of $7,177,500 Direct hotel spending of $3,161,000 29,000 Guest rooms booked 2020 CONVENTION SALES GOALS 5 Page 158 of 186 MEETINGS & CONVENTIONS ADVERTISING • Misc. Ad projects $600 in Feb, July, Sept = $1,800 • Destinations International Western Destination Guide Convene = $4,800 (Dec) • Cvent – enhanced listing on meeting planner website = $12,000 (Sept) • DI – EmpowerMINT = $7,300 (Jan) • Northwest Meetings and Events ($2,500 each in Jan, Apr, July and Oct) = $10,000 • Meetings News Northwest Book of Lists (Oct) = $4,500 TRADE SHOWS • Meeting Planner Intl.: Registration ($300), buyer program ($675) fees = $975 (Jan) • Meeting Planner Intl.: Sponsorship = $1,000 (Feb) • Washington Society of Association Executives: Convention registration for 2 staff @ $400 each = $800 (May) • Society of Government Meeting Professionals Winter Workshop: registration = $100 (Jan) • National Tour Association = $1,600 (Oct) PROMO ITEMS • Amenities: $400: Feb, July and Sept = $1,200 • Logo’d items: $350 in Feb and Aug = $700 TRAVEL • Mileage for site inspections when VTC mobile is not available = $800 per year • Professional Convention Management Association: attend 2 meetings per year; Apr and June at $500 each = $1,000 • Washington Society of Association Execs: attend 2 meetings per year; May and Oct at $500 each = $1,000 • Meeting Planners Intl.: Annual Convention: hotel, meals, and flight = $1,000 (Mar) • Olympia Spring Sales Blitz: $500 per staff person, 4 people = $2,000 (Mar) • Washington Society of Association Execs Convention: hotel, meals, travel for 2 staff @ $500 each = $1,000 (Jun) • Olympia Fall Sales Blitz: $375 per staff person, 3 people = $1,125 (Oct) • Training Classes: continuing education courses for 4 staff, hotel, meals and travel @ $2,000 per session (Feb, May, Aug and Sept) = $8,000 • Society of Government Meeting Professionals Winter Workshop: hotel, meals, travel= $300 (Feb) • National Tour Association: hotel, meals, travel = $1,600 (Oct) STAFF DEVELOPMENT • Continuing Education Training Courses: 4 staff to attend, $1,000 registration in Feb, May, Aug and Sept = $4,000 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS • Washington Society Association Executives Sapphire level sponsorship $2,550 (Jan) • Washington Society Association Executives Dues $265 each for 2 staff due = $530 (June) • Meeting Planners International Dues $375 (Dec) • Society Government Meeting Professionals Dues $400 (Apr) • Religious Conference Management Association Dues $195 (May) • Professional Conference Management Association Dues $485 (Mar) • National Tour Association Dues $700 (Feb) • Christian Meetings & Conventions Association Dues $250 (Jan) • Military Reunion Connection Dues $250 (Feb) • NTA Sponsorship $700 (Oct) AdvertisingTrade S h o w s Promo Items $40,400 $17,825 $6,435 $1,900 $4,000 $4,475 53.8% Travel23.7% 6% St a T r a i n i n g 5.3 % 8.7% 2.5% Dues/Subsc. Convention Sales Program Total:$75,035 6 Page 159 of 186 Trade Shows $30,69048.7% $13,620 Travel21.6%Sta Training3.2%$13,000 Bid Fees21.6%Advertising4.3%Dues&Subs $7951.3%$2,725 $2,000 Promo Items $200.3 ADVERTISING • Miscellaneous Ads to support tournaments: $925 ($100 Jan; $150 Mar; $325 May; $200 Nov; $150 Dec) • Sports Events Magazine Featured Listing = $1,000 (Dec) • Printed Sports Facilities Map = $800 (Jun) BID FEES • USTA Tennis = $7,000 (Aug) • National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, Softball Opening Rounds = $6,000 (May) TRAVEL • National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Symposium: $1,420 per staff (Hotel-$180 x 4 = $720; Airfare-$575; Meals-$125) x 2 staff =$2,840 (Apr) • TEAMS Conference: (Hotel-$180 x 4 =$720; Airfare-$875; Meals-$150) = $1,745 (Oct) • S.P.O.R.T.S-Relationship Conference: (Hotel-$180 x 4 =$720; Airfare-$875; Meals-$150) = $1,745 (Sept) • Connect Sports Marketplace: (Hotel = $950, Airfare = $700, Meals = $150) = $1,800 (Aug) • eSportsTravel Summit: (Hotel-$180 x 3 =$540; Airfare-$800; Meals-$150) = $1,490 (July) • Staff Development, Continuing Education Travel: $2,000 in May and July = $4,000 TRADE SHOWS • TEAMS Conference: registration = $2,600 (Feb) • TEAMS Conference: sponsorship = $7,400 (Feb) • S.P.O.R.T.S-Relationship Conference: registration $1,400, sponsorship $4,500 = $5,900 (Mar) • National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Symposium: $1,395 for staff #1, $995 for 2nd staff = $2,390 (Dec) • Connect Sports Marketplace: registration $4,250, sponsorship $6,750 = $11,000 (Mar) • eSportsTravel Summit: registration = $1,400 (Feb) STAFF DEVELOPMENT • Continuing Education Training Courses: 2 staff to attend, $1,000 registration in May and July = $2,000 PROMO ITEMS • Sports Amenities: $200 (Apr) DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS • National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Membership: $795 (Dec) Sports Program Total:$63,030 7 Page 160 of 186 SPORTSEVENTS 2020 ACTIONS • Sports Council: Organize and administer activities for the Tri-Cities Sports Council. • Advertising: Place print and digital advertising as appropriate in publications such as: Sports Events, Sports Destination Management, and Connect Sports. • Sales Blitz: Conduct sales calls in October in the greater Seattle area. • Promote Resources: Reprint and update the sports facilities guide. • FAM Tours & Services: Arrange site inspections for tournament planners, provide tools and information for promotional purposes and communicate with tournament planners during their event. • Opportunity Fund: Utilize the opportunity fund specifically to offset tournament costs for groups that block more than 300 rooms per night city-wide. • Trade Shows: Promote the Tri-Cities as a premier sports destination at National Tradeshow Events such as Teams, S.P.O.R.T.S, Connect Sports Marketplace, eSportsTravel Summit, and National Association of Sports Commissions. Promote the Destination Sponsor events at annual national sports trade shows, where we conduct one-on-ones appointments with decision makers. • Bidding Fees: Bid on new regional/ national level tournaments that demand bidding fees to host events. Economic impact of $7,425,00025,000 Guest rooms booked Direct hotel spending of $3,125,000 2020 SALES GOALS 8 Page 161 of 186 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 2020 ACTIONS • Website: The Visit Tri-Cities website, VisitTri-Cities.com, is the one of the organization’s primary marketing tools and all campaigns direct consumers to the website. In early 2019 a digital marketing manager position was added to manage digital campaigns in-house, which is more expedient and more cost effective. By monitoring website performance, we can evaluate the success of our digital campaigns effectively. Through the first six month of the year visits to the site have increased by 40% over prior year, new users are up 42% and the mix of sales is skewing higher for users outside of the area, which speaks to the ability for digital advertising to target who receives our messages and where messages appear. In 2020 we will offer members the opportunity to add enhanced video listings. The age of the website is nearing five years. Each year funding has been set aside in reserves for either a refresh or re-build, and the RFP process should begin in late 2020 or early 2021. • Promote the Destination: Promote increased leisure travel through development of campaigns targeting wine enthusiasts, golfers, outdoor adventurers and STEM tourism. • Travel Trade shows: Target travel and golf related trade shows in key Northwest markets and promote wine tourism through Taste Washington and Vintage Spokane. • Materials: Publications including the Official Tri-Cities Visitor Guide, the Golf in Washington Wine Country brochure, the Wine & Dine brochure and the shopping brochure, all support the Tri-Cities brand and are targeted to key markets to increase visitor spending. These publications will be released in six-month intervals to complement each other and maximize their timeliness. Electronic versions are also posted to VisitTri-Cities.com. • Advertise: Digital and social media advertising will supplement the traditional advertising. The advertising budget calls for a little more flexibility to target seasonal needs as they arise. After a few years of investing in advertising in many markets in the Northwest, we will return to the previous strategy of concentrating mostly on the Puget Sound region for regional campaigns because the largest population is centered there. National campaigns will be added where it makes sense. In 2019 we launched campaigns in Los Angeles to support new air service for example. • Social Media: Visit TRI-CITIES promotes the destination through Tri-Cities WA (24,316 followers) on Facebook, as well as through Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. In 2019 Facebook followers increased by 7.4% due to increased advertising and more creative content. In 2020 we will offer members the opportunity to purchase social media advertising packages. • Tri-Cities Wine Tourism Council: There has long been the need to assist wine industry related businesses in becoming more cohesive and organized in order to market the region. Visit Tri-Cities staff provides management and leadership for the Tri-Cities Wine Tourism Council, which works on marketing projects designed to increase wine tourism. • Packages: Work with member hotels to showcase their existing packages to travel media and on the Visit Tri-Cities website. • Consumer e-News: User generated content on the website and social media channels will be supplemented by quarterly consumer newsletters targeted to interest groups (outdoor recreation, wine, science) to compel readers to plan leisure travel to the region. 9 Page 162 of 186 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Advertising $269,10085% Promo Items $4,9001.5% Website $19,2006%Trade Shows2.4%$7,665Sta Training $4,0001.3% Travel $12,10012% ADVERTISING • Golf & Wine Getaway Brochure: Brochure $3,000 (Mar) • Images for Ad Design = $6,000 (June) • WTA State Official Visitor Guide: $5,000 (Nov) (Remainder Paid by Hotel-Motel Tax) • Social Media/Google Ads = $1,000 (Jan, June, Nov) $2,000 (Feb, Mar, Apr, May, July, Aug, Sept, Oct) $600 (Dec) = $19,600 • Television Commercials in Puget Sound Region $30,000 each for Spring (May/June) and Fall (Aug/Sept) = $60,000 • Digital Ad Campaigns targeting group, sports, leisure travel, varying by market and time frame as needed = $90,500 ($22,265 per quarter, Mar, June, Sept, Dec) • Advertising for Hanford Section of the National Park $10,000 in Feb, May and July = $30,000 • Video Footage Production $5,000 in Mar, May and June = $15,000 • Virtual Reality Production $5,000 in Jan and Feb = $10,000 • Arrivalist/Airsage for visitor analytics = $30,000 (Jan) TRADE SHOWS • Seattle Golf & Travel Show: Exhibit fees due Sept = $1,600 • Spokane Golf & Travel Show: Exhibit fees due Oct = $1,000 • Spokane Wine Show “Vintage Spokane” in May = $2,065 • Equipment/Monitors to support virtual Reality Displays in Jan =$3,000 TRAVEL • Seattle Golf & Travel Show: hotels, meals, car rental, parking, and fuel for 2 staff = $1,700 (Mar) • Spokane Golf & Travel Show: hotels, meals, car rental, parking, and fuel for 2 staff = $1,200 (Feb) • Tri-Cities Wine Tourism Council: Travel allowance to support Tradeshows $600 each show, 1 staff member (Mar, Sept) = $1,200 • Training Classes: continuing education courses for 4 staff, hotel, meals and travel @ $2,000 per session (Mar, May, Jul and Sept) = $8,000 STAFF TRAINING • Continuing Education Training Courses: 4 staff to attend, $1,000 registration in Mar, May, July and Sept = $4,000 WEBSITE/ INTERNET MARKETING • Invest in Search Engine Optimization for new website: Aristotle Bronze SEO Package $3,600 a quarter (Jan, Apr, July, Oct) = $14,400 • Website Hosting Fee: $4,800 annually = ($1,200 a quarter, Mar, June, Sept, Dec) PROMO ITEMS • Registration Bags in Feb = $2,500 • Logo’d Swag $1,200 in Apr and Aug = $2,400 Total Tourism Development Program Cost: $316,965 10 Page 163 of 186 0 0 Seattle*Spokane Seattle Southside TacomaYakima Valley Tri-Cities Vancouver Walla Walla $7,500,000 $15,000,000 $22,500,000 Seattle*Spokane Tacoma*Seattle Southside Walla Walla Yakima ValleyTri-Cities Vancouver $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $9,000,000 $12,000,000 0 0 Seattle*Spokane Seattle Southside TacomaYakima Valley Tri-Cities Vancouver Walla Walla $7,500,000 $15,000,000 $22,500,000 Seattle*Spokane Tacoma*Seattle Southside Walla Walla Yakima ValleyTri-Cities Vancouver $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $9,000,000 $12,000,000 Destination Marketing Organization (DMO)Funding Comparative The following chart provides a total budget comparative (including Hotel Motel Tax, Membership Investments and Tourism Promotion Assessment) in key competitive markets: The following chart provides a comparative for Hotel Motel Tax investments only for each destination marketing organization within key competitor markets: * Includes Sports Council $24,973,764 $5,400,409 $5,105,500 $2,700,000$2,821,600 $2,803,280 $1,550,999 $1,107,000 $11,642,510 $2,412,500 $655,000$1,088,000 $670,000 $641,800$706,659 $314,666 11 Page 164 of 186 Destination Marketing Organization (DMO)Funding Comparative The following chart provides a comparative for Tourism Promotion Assessments only for each destination marketing organization within key competitor markets: 0 Seattle*SpokaneSeattle Southside Tacoma Yakima ValleyTri-Cities Vancouver Walla Walla $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,086,542 $3,900,000 $2,196,744 $1,614,181 $1,227,933 $1,200,000 $645,00 $375,000 12 Page 165 of 186 APPENDIX 13 Page 166 of 186 14 Page 167 of 186 SPORTS GROUP SALES Jan Feb Mar Apr Mav June Julv Auq Advertisinq $100 $0 $150 $0 $325 $800 $0 $0 Biddinq Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $7,000 Travel $0 $0 $0 $2,840 $2,000 $0 $3,490 $1,800 Trade Show $0 $11,400 $16,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Staff Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 Promo items $0 $0 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 Dues/Subsc. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Totals: $100 $11,400 $17,050 $3,040 $9,325 $800 $4,490 $8,800 Sept Oct Nov Dec Total $0 $0 $200 $1,150 $2,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,000 $1,745 $1,745 $0 $0 $13,620 $0 $0 $0 $2,390 $30,690 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0 $795 $795 $1,745 $1,745 $200 $4,335 $63,030 Advertising: Miscellaneous Ads to support tournaments: $925 ($100 Jan; $150 Mar; $325 May; $200 Nov; $150 Dec) Sports Events Magazine Featured Listing = $1,000 (Dec) Printed Sports Facilities Map = $800 (Jun) Bidding Fees: USTA Tennis= $7,000 (Aug) National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, Softball Opening Rounds= $6,000 (May) Travel: National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Symposium: $1,420 per staff (Hotel-$180 x 4 = $720; Airfare-$575; Meals-$125) x 2 staff= $2,840 (Apr) TEAMS Conference: (Hotel-$180 x 4 =$720; Airfare-$875; Meals-$150) = $1,745 (Oct) S.P.O.R.T.S-Relationship Conference: (Hotel-$180 x 4 =$720; Airfare-$875; Meals-$150) = $1,745 (Sept) Connect Sports Marketplace: (Hotel = $950, Airfare = $700, Meals = $150) = $1,800 (Aug) eSportsTravel Summit: (Hotel-$180 x 3 =$540; Airfare-$800; Meals-$150) = $1,490 (July) Staff Development, Continuing Education Travel: $2,000 in May and July = $4,000 Trade Shows: TEAMS Conference: registration = $2,600 (Feb) TEAMS Conference: sponsorship = $7,400 (Feb) S.P.O.R.T.S-Relationship Conference: registration $1,400, sponsorship $4,500 = $5,900 (Mar) National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Symposium: $1,395 for staff #1, $995 for staff #2 = $2,390 (Dec) Connect Sports Marketplace: registration $4,250, sponsorship $6,750 = $11,000 (Mar) eSportsTravel Summit: registration = $1,400 (Feb) Staff Development: Continuing Education Training Courses: 2 staff to attend, $1,000 registration in May and July = $2,000 Promo Items: Sports Amenities: $200 (Apr) Dues and Subscriptions: National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Membership: $795 (Dec) 15 Page 168 of 186 16 Page 169 of 186 17 Page 170 of 186 18 Page 171 of 186 Destination Marketing Funding Comparative The following chart provides a Total Budget comparative (including Hotel Motel Tax, Membership Investments and Tourism Promotion Assessment) in key competitive markets: The following chart provides a comparative for Hotel Motel Tax investments only for each destination marketing organization within key competitor markets: The following chart provides a comparative for Tourism Promotion Assessments only for each destination marketing organization within key competitor markets: *Not all hotels contribute to the Hotel Motel Tax and/or Tourism Promotion Assessment. Competing City Bureau Budget Number of Hotel Rooms $ Spent per Room Visit Seattle & Sports Council $24,973,764 14,393 $1,735 Visit Spokane $5,400,409 8,167 $661 Seattle Southside Tourism Authority $5,105,500 8,786 $581 Yakima Valley Tourism $2,821,600 2,424 $1,164 Visit Tri-Cities $2,803,280 4,506 $622 Travel Tacoma & Sports Council $2,700,000 7,200 $375 Visit Vancouver USA $1,550,999 2,900 $535 Walla Walla Tourism $1,107,000 1,000 $1,107 Competing City Hotel Motel Tax Number of Hotel Rooms $ Spent per Room Visit Seattle & Sports Council $11,642,510 14,393 $809 Visit Spokane $2,412,500 8,167 $295 Seattle Southside Tourism Authority $1,088,000 8,786 $124 Visit Tri-Cities $706,659 4,506 $157 Walla Walla Tourism $670,000 1,000 $670 Travel Tacoma & Sports Council $655,000 7,200 $91 Yakima Valley Tourism $641,800 2,424 $265 Visit Vancouver USA $314,666 2,900 $109 Competing City TPA Collection Number of Hotel Rooms $ Spent per Room Visit Seattle & Sports Council $8,086,542 14,393 $562 Seattle Southside Tourism Authority $3,900,000 8,786 $444 Visit Spokane $2,196,744 6,008* $365 Visit Tri-Cities $1,614,181 4,506 $358 Visit Vancouver USA $1,227,933 2,900 $423 Travel Tacoma & Sports Commission $1,200,000 7,200* $167 Yakima Valley Tourism $645,000 2,424 $266 Walla Walla Tourism $375,000 930* $403 19 Page 172 of 186 20 Page 173 of 186 x x p YEARS Est. 1969 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd., Ste. B Kennewick, WA 99336 (509) 735-8486 I (800) 254-5824 VisitTri-Cities.com Page 174 of 186 CITY OF PASCO October 14, 2019 Page 175 of 186 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Tourism Promotional Area Programs TPA Budget Page 176 of 186 •Convention, Sports and Group Marketing •Digital Advertising •Social Media Advertising •Wine Country Advertising •Website Maintenance •Regional and National Tradeshows (10) •Opportunity Fund Grants •National Park Marketing •Television Commercials PROMOTION ASSESSMENT FUNDED BY TOURISM Page 177 of 186 City of Richland Wendy Higgins, The Lodge at Columbia Point Andrew Lucero, Courtyard by Marriott Cindy Reents,Ex Officio, City of Richland City of Kennewick Mark Blotz, Clover Island Inn Jerry Beach, SpringHill Suites by Marriott Marie Mosley, Ex Officio, City of Kennewick City of Pasco Monica Hammerberg, Hampton Inn & Suites Pasco / Tri-Cities Vijay Patel, A-1 Hospitality Dave Zabell, Ex Officio, City of Pasco TRI-CITY REGIONAL HOTEL-MOTEL COMMISSION Page 178 of 186 ≈ May/June Hotel Surveys Completed July Hotel Commission Review of Surveys August First Draft Prepared September Hotel Commissioners Approve Plan October 1st Delivered to Cities for City Council Review and Final Approval HOW THE MARKETING PLAN IS DEVELOPED Page 179 of 186 2020 TOURISM OUTLOOK NATIONAL: •Supply: +1.9% •Demand: +1.7% •Revenue Growth: 1.9%Page 180 of 186 2020 TOURISM OUTLOOK TRI-CITIES: •5.2% Growth increase in rooms •99 rooms Courtyard by Marriott, Pasco •122 rooms WoodSpring Suites, South Richland •Path forward on Three Rivers Convention Center Page 181 of 186 DESTINATION MARKETING ORGANIZATION FUNDING Page 182 of 186 MEETINGS & CONVENTIONS SPORTS EVENTS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Page 183 of 186 TRADE SHOWS & INDUSTRY EVENTS •Meeting Planners International •Washington Society of Association Executives •Society of Government Meeting Professionals Winter Workshop •National Tour Association •TEAMS Conference •S.P.O.R.T.S-Relationship Conference •National Association of Sports Commissions (NASC) Symposium •Connect Sports Marketplace •eSportsTravel Summit •Seattle Golf & Travel Show •Spokane Golf & Travel Show •Spokane Wine Show “Vintage Spokane” Page 184 of 186 Page 185 of 186 THANK YOUPage 186 of 186