HomeMy WebLinkAbout022712_ca11
Department of Public Works
o Consent Agenda
Page 1 of 2
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Request
From:
Board of Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
Frank Gifford, Public Works Director #
To:
Agenda Date:
Subject:
February 27, 2011
Concurrence and Authorization to proceed with the real
property negotiation and acquisition regarding the Rick
Tollefson Memorial Trail -County Project No. 18018150,
STPR-2016(018)
Statement of Issue:
Request for approval of Concurrence and Authorization for payment of Just
Compensation as indicated on the attached Review Appraiser Certificate in
conjunction with Rick Tollefson Memorial Trail County Project No. 18018150, Port
Townsend, Washington;
Analysis/Strategic Goals/Pro's 6: Con's:
This request is in keeping with established Jefferson County RIGHT OF WAY acquisition
procedures, Resolution 05.11, established to comply with State and Federal rules and
regulations. This authorization establishes a just compensation, directs the Department
of Public Works to enter into formal negotiations with the subject property owners to
acquire necessary property rights and grants the authority to execute the
documentation to close said transactions and further coordinate with the grant funding
sources to pay for acquisition expenses.
FiscallmpactlCost Benefit AnalysiS:
This project is on the 2012 6 Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and included
in the 2012 Annual Construction Budget. Project funding is primarily provided by the
Federal Highway Administration and the State Pedestrian Bicycle Safety Program;
however this easement acquisition is with local Road funds.
Department of Public Works
o Consent Agenda
Page 2 of 2
Recommendation:
The Department of Public Works recommends approval, concurrence and authorization.
Please sign the enclosed "Authorization To Proceed With Right Of Way Acquisition"
document (2 originals) where indicated, acknowledging the concurrence and
authorization to proceed with the negotiation and acquisition for the designated
properties. Return one signed original to Department of Public Works. Please keep one
signed original for the Commissioners records.
Department Contact: Will Butterfield, 385-9350.
Reviewed By:
?-/~ 2-
Date
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH REAL PROPERTY ACQUISmON
Rick TolJefton Memorial Trail County Projed No. 18018150
Based on the attached Review Appraiser Certificates dated December 5 and 6, 2011 and
the authority granted below, we hereby establishjust compensation and authorize the first
offers on the following parcels:
Parcel Number
Land Area
Acres
901113002
0.18
Just
Compensation
(Offer)
$ 4,500.00
Recommendation and Approval:
Approved by:
~:tl ~
Frank Gifford .
Public Works Director
::Liz, Ii 2-
Date
Concurrence and Authorization:
The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County does hereby establishjust
compensation as stated above. The Board indicates its concurrence and gives authorization
for the Department of Public Works to proceed with the offer, negotiation and acquisition
of the above designAt'ld properties in accordance with Right of Way Acquisition
Procedures Resolution OS-II, approved February 7, 2011. This authorization further
directs the Department to execute the documentation to close said transactions and
coordinate with the approved ftmding sources to pay for acquisition expenses.
Approved By:
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Date
Jom Austin, Chair
Phil Johnson, Member
David W. Sullivan, Member
.
Revi~w Appraiser's Certificate No.1
From: Joseph H. Granger, Review Appl'lliser
To: Jefferson County PobHc Works
Panels: Tax lis 9011l3OO2,6 in
Jefferson County, WA)
CR#: CRIS15
Owner: DouglaS Lee Joyce
Federal Aid #: HLP-STPR-2016(018)
Project: Rick Tollefson Memorial Trail, Ph 1
Map Sheet: 1 of 1 Sheets
MapApproved: 11-16-2011
Last Map Revision: none
The following appraiso1s have been made on this larger parcel tU1d are tMsubject oj this Review Certljlcote #1:
APPRAISER VALUE BEFORE AFI'ER VALUE ALLOCATION.
NAME DA.::!Ji VALUE VALUE DIFFERENCE TaIdnll Damases
1. G. Waldner 11-18-2011 $177,100 $175,390 $1,710 none $1,710
The following priOr Review Certijicares have been made on this larger parcel tU1d are the subject of this Review Certljlcote #1:
REVIEWER REVIEW BEFORE AFI'ER VALUE ALLOCATION
NAME DA.::!Ji VALUE V ALlIE DIFFERENCE Taklnll Daml\ges
l.nane
Ap,pl'llisal Review Comments and Conclusions:
AllPmisal #1 was received for review on or about 12-1-2011; it is referred to as "the appraisal" herein.
The appraisal correctly identifies the subject larger parcel as a 17.71 acre interior tract comprised of Jefferson
County tax parcels 901113002 and 901113006 due to their unity of title and use, and their contiguity. Its
highest and best use as vacant is residentiallagricultuml per zoning, demand, physical features, and trends. It is
currently mostly vacant land occupied by a mobile home (personalty) and some outbuildings. All of the current
realty site improvements appear to fully contribute value to the land.
The appraisal problem is a partial taking: 0.18 acre in a permanent trail easement in a fairly uniform strip 30'
wide across itS northwesterly comer. Located within this compensable taking are wild brush and trees, none of
which appear merchantable; there are no improvements within the proposed take. The permanent trail easement
will be fenced by the project. .
The purpose of the takings is to construct a trail project for the general public to use.. Thus, there are no special
benefits caused by the project There do appear to be severance damages caused by the takinglproject: the
project trail will sever about 0.29 acre of the subject remainder (remainder west) and effectively prevent its
reasonable use in conjunction with the larger parcel's remainder east due the trail fence. This results in a loss of
most of the contribution value of said remainder west, severely damaging it.
Appraisal #1 is a complete appraisal assignment in a limited report, following the WSDOT Short Form
J. H. Granger, Reviewer
Page 1 of7 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
appraisal format and the Before and After appi:'aisal procedure; these are minimally adequate in scope to solve
the appraisal problem.
To value the subject larger parcel's vacant land as unencumbered in the Before and After Situations, the
appraisal JU~compares 6 residential/agricultural land sales in the vicinity in a Sales Comparison Approach;
no other approach is applicable. The data adequately reflect the range bfvalue for the subject's type of land.
. The appraisal's comparisons of the market data to the ~ect are reasonable and fairly consistent, and its
conclusions of the ~ect larger parcel's unencumbered vacant fee land value Before and After at $10,000 per
acre by direct comparison are reasonable and supported, but probably at the upper limits of probable value for
. .
today's slow market.
The appraisal then argues that the proposed trail easement removes about 95% of the underlying fee land's
utility, reSulting in damages at said rate. This rate of fee land utility loss is reasonable and is typical for this type
of easement, but is a take, not a ~am~.
The appraisal does not address the severed remnant remainder west's lack of utility by the remainder right in the
After, even though it will be fenced-out from the subject's remainder right. The reviewer contacted the appraiser
and the appraiser concurred that said remainder west should be damaged for this affectation (copy attached).
Therefore, the damages to the remaimJer west are calculated in review at the same rate as the easement take for
consistency: 0.29 acre @ $10,000 per acre @ 95% = $2,800 (R) severance damages to remainder west.
There are severaI minor typographical errors in the appi:'aisal; however, correction of these would not alter its
value conclusions. The reviewer changes the status of the easement take from a damage to a take, adds damages
for the severed remainder west, and rounds calculations upward per the prudent market.
.There are no personalty (chattel) items or tenant-owned realty items takenlaffeded.
NOTE: the remainder west of approximately 0.29 acre size is an Uneconomic Remnant
because it is of little or no utility or value to the owner. Its value is calculated in review
as: 0.29 acre @ $10,000 per acre @ 5% = $150 (R).
The appraisal and this review use the eorreet methods and teehniques. The market data in the
appraisal are adequate and appropriate to solve the appraisal problem. The conclusions of value
reached in the appraisal and in this review are reasouable and fit the market eviden""
J. H. Granger, Reviewer
Page2 of7 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
,
o
REVIEWER'S DETERMINATION OF VALUE #1,
. YALUE BEFORE ACQUISmON:
VALUE AFfER ACQUISmON:
VALUE DIFFERENCE:
ESTIMATlID JUST COMPENSATION IS
$ 177,100
$ 172.600
$ 4,500
$ 4,500 AS OF 12-5-2011
Reviewer's Allocation of Just Compensation:
Acquisition:
Land Taken in Fee: none
Permanent Trail Esmt Take: 0.18 acre @ $10,000 per acre @ 95%
. Damages: loss of contribution value (utility) by severed remnant west (see above)
Special Benefits: none
Total Just Compensation this larger parcel
= $ 0
= $ 1,700 (R)
= $ 2,800 (R)
= ($ 0)
= $ 4,500.
APPRAISAL REVIEW SALIENT INFORMATION
Property Rights Appraised
Unless specified otherwise in this review, the property rights appraised constitute the fee simple interest.
Date of Value
The effective date of1he value opinion for 1he property in this review is specified on page 1 herein.
Competency of Reviewer
The revieWer has both the knowledge and experience required to competently perform this review; a detailed
resume is available upon written request. The reviewer is approved by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHW A), 1he Washington State Transportation Department (WSDOT), and the Washington Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC, now called the RCO) to perform fee appraisal reviews for all public
agencies in Washington State. The reviewer is a state certified appraiser with the General classification,
#1100549, whose license expires 1-13-2012.
J. H Granger, Reviewer
Page 3 017 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
Purpose of this Review
Ovem.U. the purpose is to e~te the total Just Compensation dlle the owner for the taking of privately owned
real property for the public project identified.
For a partial taking, this is done by elrtimating the Fair Market ValUe of the subject Larger Parcel in the Before
Situation (as it now exists), estimating the Fair Market Value of the subject Larger Parcel in the After Situation
(after the taking and the constCuction of the planned project), then subtracting the latter fromthe former.
Use of this Review
This review estimates Just Compensation due the owner and will be used to establish the first offer amount to
be made to the owner by Jefferson County Public Works/its agents (client).
Scope of tbisReview
Those commonly recogn;7P.d valuation methods and techniques most appropriate for valuing the subject Larger
Parcel were done in this review. This review involved a reasonably detailed inspection of the subject property,
the subject neighborhood, and surro.mdinglcump<fuug neighborhoods. Sales and 1istings of competing
properties were investigated before any conclusions of value were made.
Unless otherwise stated above, the Income and Cost Approaches to value were not employed in this review
because the Sales Comparison Approach is sufficient to solve the subject appraisal problem.
. Definition of the Larger Parcel
The "Larger Parcel" is the parent parcel; it is the real property that is the subject of this review. It is that real
property that has Unity of Use, Unity of Ownership, and Contiguity.
J. H. Granger, Reviewer
Page 4 of7 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
,APPRAISAL REVIEW ASSUMPTIONS and lJMlTING CQNDlTIONS
1. The I"~ desc:ription supplied to the reviewer is assumed to be correct;
2. No surveys of the p1upoaties have been made by the reviewer and no responsibility is assumed in connection with sueh matters;
3. No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature affi:cting title to the I"'lpwties, nor is any opinion of title rendered.
Property titles are assumed to be good and merchantable.
4. JnfonnatIon furnished by others is assumed to be fr!1e, correct, and reliable. A reasonableceffort has been made to verifY such
information; however, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed by the reviewer;
5. All mortgages, liens, encmnbrarlces,leases, and servitudes have been disregarded noless so specified in review. The property is
assumed to be under responsible ownership and competent management;
6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unappw.<a.d. conditions ofthel"up.aly, its subsoil, or its structures which would render it
more or less wIuable. No responsihiIity is assumed for such conditions or for engineering or testing which may be required to
discover them;
7. Unless otherwise stated, the existence ofbazardous material, which may or may not be present in or on the properly, was not
observed by the reviewer. The reviewer has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the properly. The reviewer,
however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as.asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation,
or other potenti!illy bazardousltoxic materials may affect the value of the properly. The wIne esthnate in this review is predicated on
the assumption that there is no such material on or in the properly that would cause a loss in wIne. No responsibility is assunIed for
any such conditions, or for the expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in
this field if desired; .
8. Unless otherwise stated, no enviromnen1Dl impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this review, and the
reviewer hereby reserves the right to aller, amend, revise, or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent
enviromnen1Dl impact studies, research, or investigation;
9. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local enviromnen1Dl regulations and laws noless
noncompliance is specified, defined, and considered in this review;
10. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, noless nonconformity has
been specified, defined, and considered in this review;
11. It is assumed that all required licenses, con.~ or other legislative or adminlstratIve authority from any local, state, or nAti""" 1
governmen1Dl or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimates
contained in this review are based; .
12. The reviewer will not be required to give -ony or appear in court becanse of having made this review noless armngements
have been previously made therefur;
13. Possession of this review or a copy ~ 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 reviewer 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 review, or copy thereo:t: sha1l be conveyed to the pnblic through advertising, public
relations, news, aales, or any other media without written consent and approval of the reviewer. Nor sha1l the reviewer, client, firm,
or professional organization of which the reviewer is a member be identified without the written consent of the reviewer;
15. The Jiability of the reviewer, employees, and subcontractors is Iimited to the client only. There is no aCcountability, obligation,
or liability to any other party. If this review is placed in the hands of anyone other than .the client, the client sha1l make such party
aware of alllimiring conditions and asswnptions of the assignment and related discussions. The reviewer is in no way responsible for
any costs incwred to discover or correct any deficiencies in the p1upe..ties;
16. It is assumed that the public project which is the object of this review will be constructed in the manner proposed and in the
reasonably foreseeable future;
17. Acceptance and/or use of this review constitotes acceptance of the foregoing assumptions and limiting conditions.
J. H. Granger, Reviewer
Page 5 of7 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
CERTIFICA1'EOF REVIEW APPRAISER
I, the review appraiser, certifY 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 ai1a.lyses, opinions, and conclusions in this review report are limited only by the
assumptions and limiting conditions stated in this reView report, and are my pelsonal, unbiased
professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. . .
3. I have no present or prospective interest in the plVpefty.that is the subject of this report and I
have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
4. I have no bias with respect to the propertY that is the subject of this report or to the parties
involved in this assignment.
5. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
6. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions,
or conclusions in, or the use of, this review report.
7. Appraisal #1 and my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this review report
was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and
with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal LandAcquisitions.
8. I personally inspected the subject propertY of the appraisal under review on December 4, 2011.
No one provided.significant appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing
this certificate.
I further certifY that if this review is to be used in conjunction with a Federal Aid Highway Project or other
federally funded project, none of the approved just compensation herein is ineligible for Federal reimbursement.
W,;~hington S
Date Signed:
December 5. 2011
Signature:
h H. ger, Review Appraiser,
. ed Real Estate Appraiser: General, #1100549
J. H. Granger. Reviewer
Page 6 of7 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
CQNCUQRENQ: and AUTHORIZATION for PAYMENT of JUST COMeENSATlON
. Jefferson County Public Works does hereby indicate concurrence with the above certification and with the
c~cation of the severed remainder west as an Uneconomic Remnant. and does authorize further action by
staff7its agents to proceed according to established procedures with the acquisition of the property. .
1. I have no present or prospective personal interest in the property that is the subject of this report
2. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
3. My corn.pensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from this report
J. H. Granger. Reviewer
Page 7 of7 Pages
Parcel: 901113002,6 (Joyce)
h~ I - I .. I
CD I _.-.",..
~;;; -~~_ II I
~~ - - ~- - - --- - - - --~
... 1 -.,.,..:..~~ ~/ 1\'
o.;~
",' --.... .
~~ . ---....
-;:-...
::5t:g; , -~.
~ "-~ ~ d I
:;:'"
~!I ,
~ ~ I I
0:: ,.: . li~tl
a -~ ~I
~"'::s
~ ~o
~ ~~ ~ I il II
a~~
I i!
~ -.., ~
~~
I.
~
~tl Hit i
!l<::~ I~
u~ II I
O:!~ I II
1'1 ~ I 1 h
I~ ~ .
~
~ Q. . II
~~ '<( ~ i
II w
I
i
-~=- ~ @ \
~. .~
. B
. .
I~ .~tll
II ~1'li
9 ~.
II !. II
i I I me!i!
~ SalIn
i5::i .. "" of
l
'I~I