U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Washington Division
Conducted by:
Federal Highway Administration
Washington State Department of Transportation
Field reviews conducted: Feb. & Mar., 2002
Final report submitted: June 2002
Team members:
Dave Leighow, FHWA
Tim Haugh, FHWA
Galen Wright, WSDOT
WSDOT support team:
Roger Arms
Diana Ayers
Dick Birr
Susan Clemen
Bill Hicks
Larry Hook
Mike Horton
Jerry Kuntz
Doug Winge
Hal Wolfe
Purpose of review: Evaluate the effectiveness of local public agency (LPA) right-of-way program implemention of the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) in Washington; identify areas for enhancing LPA right-of-way program operations; share all identified "best practices" with WSDOT, LPAs, and other Division Offices.
Scope of review: Projects in three counties (Pierce, Spokane, Yakima) and two cities (Everett, Spokane) were reviewed. Through staff interviews and file reviews, the review team evaluated the compliance of these projects with the URA in all functional areas, including appraisal, appraisal review, negotiations, condemnation, and relocation assistance. Prior to commencing these reviews, the review team ensured the agencies were notified in advance of our visit, providing them notice of the purpose and scope of the review.
Review team: The core team consisted of Dave Leighow, FHWA; Galen Wright, WSDOT; and Tim Haugh, FHWA (Alaska Division). Additional team members included the appropriate Region Real Estate Local Programs Coordinator (Hal Wolfe, Olympic Region; Doug Winge, Northwest Region; Dick Birr, Eastern Region; Bill Hicks, South Central Region); the Region Highways & Local Programs Coordinator (Mike Horton, Olympic Region; Jerry Kuntz, Eastern Region; Roger Arms, South Central Region); and Relocation specialists Diana Ayers, City of Everett review, and Susan Clemens, Yakima County review. The WSDOT South Central Region Real Estate Manager, Larry Hook, joined us for the Yakima County review.
Entrance meeting: The team initiated each review by meeting with the local agency real estate staff to discuss the purpose and scope of the review, answer any questions the staff had, and arrange both for individual staff interviews and file reviews.
Field reviews: The goal of the team was to interview key members of the local agency real estate staff (e.g., the manager, the negotiators, the relocation agents, etc.) and to thoroughly review selected files and documents for each project under review. The team reviewed the title documents, appraisals, determinations of value, agent diaries, payment claims, the right-of-way certification(s), and related correspondence.
Exit meeting: Upon completion of the interviews and file reviews, the team conducted an exit meeting with the local agency real estate staff. The team reviewed preliminary findings and informed the staff of any items of concern which were noted along with opportunities for improvements and identified best practices. The team committed to provide a formal written follow-up to the local agency staff detailing its findings and recommendations.
Reports: This report sets out the findings of the review and provides an action plan for addressing issues and concerns noted in the reviews.
Action plan: The review team will be responsible for overseeing implementation of the action plan. The review team will coordinate directly with the appropriate units of WSDOT and the local agencies involved to ensure the action items are accomplished. The review team will coordinate any technical assistance that may be needed to complete the action items.
Contents of attached:
1. Executive Summary
2. Pierce County Review Results
3. City of Everett Review Results
4. Spokane County Review Results
5. City of Spokane Review Results
6. Yakima County Review Results
7. Action Plan
8. Samples of "Best Practice" Appraisal Review Statements
Attachment 1: Executive Summary
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of local public agency right-of-way program implementation of the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act in Washington and to identify and share "best practices". The scope of the review consisted of five LPAs-Pierce County, City of Everett, City of Spokane, Spokane County, and Yakima County. The joint FHWA/WSDOT review team interviewed local agency staffs and performed a sample review of selected projects and parcels. Entrance and exit interviews were conducted at all review sites.
In general, the findings of this review were positive and indicate a good working relationship exists between the LPAs and the WSDOT. While some areas for improvement were noted, the agencies reviewed are effectively implementing the Uniform Relocation Act. Communications are very good, but we found that sometimes information on training opportunities and procedural changes are not filtering down to the LPA right-of-way staffs in a timely manner. Project files were generally well organized and adequately documented, although a few minor deficiencies were noted. A major finding of the review was that training is a high priority with the LPAs, and both WSDOT and FHWA can do more to deliver timely training to them. Communication of "best practices" and examples of "real world" problems and solutions (e.g., case studies) are of interest to the LPAs.
As a result of the findings of this review, the Team developed an action plan which proposes five recommendations:
Attachment 2: Pierce County Review Results
The team visited the Pierce County Public Works Right-of-Way Section on February 25 & 26, 2002. We met with the Engineering Division Manager, Jerry Bryant, and the Right-of-Way Section consisting of the Right-of-Way Supervisor, Don Hagen, and his staff: Jim Prossick, Wayne McBrady, Jennifer Andres, Kerri Wittman, and Jennifer Walker. During the opening interview, we learned the following:
We reviewed two Federal-aid projects in Pierce County: Spanaway Loop, FAP # P-STPUL-TA96(4); and the Foothill Trails, Orting to South Prairie, FAP # STPE-2027(019). The latter project had originally been done by the County's Parks Department, which was unfamiliar with the Uniform Act requirements for Federal projects. After WSDOT reviewed and found problems with this project, the County assigned Wayne McBrady to shepherd the project and he did a diligent job of bringing this project into compliance with the Uniform Act requirements.
The findings of our file review of these projects include the following:
After completing our file reviews, we conducted a close-out session with the Engineering Division Manager, Jerry Bryant, the Right-of-Way Supervisor, Don Hagen, and some members of his staff. We presented the findings of our review, emphasizing our overall satisfaction with Pierce County's right-of-way program and the professionalism of their staff. We discussed the following recommendations and possible follow-up actions:
Attachment 3: City of Everett Review Results
The team visited the City of Everett Right-of-Way Staff on February 27, 28, and March 1, 2002. We met with Craig Fullerton and Laurae Briggs, who comprise the City of Everett's R/W staff (they recently hired another person, who was unavailable during our visit). Brian Jones, the Engineering Services Manager, also joined us for the opening session. We discussed the following issues during the opening interview:
We reviewed two Federal-aid projects: The 41st Street Overcrossing, FAP # HP-1998(015); and, E. Marine View Drive, FAP # M-9999(137). The findings of our file review of these projects include the following:
After completing our file reviews, we conducted a close-out session with Craig and Laurae. We presented the findings of our review, emphasizing our overall satisfaction with the City's right-of-way program and the experience and professionalism of their staff. We discussed the following recommendations and possible follow-up actions:
The team visited Spokane County on March 25 & 26, 2002. We met with Sherman Johnson, the County's R/W Manager, and members of his staff including Ray Moon, Blas Ortiz Jr., Allen Skimminy, Jeff McIntyre, Terri Hansen, Jerry Williams, Fred Foss, and Barry Lines. There were a variety of issues discussed during the opening interview:
We reviewed the following Federal-aid project: 16th Avenue, from SR-27 to Sullivan Road, FAP # STPF-4030(001). The findings of our file review of this project include the following:
After completing our file reviews, we conducted a close-out session with Sherman Johnson and his staff; we also included the County Engineer, Gary Nelson, in our discussion about the project funding. We presented the findings of our review, emphasizing our overall satisfaction with the County's right-of-way program and the experience and professionalism of their staff. We discussed the following recommendations and possible follow-up actions:
Attachment 5: City of Spokane Review Results
The team visited the City of Spokane on March 27, 2002. We met with the Real Estate staff-Don Nesbitt, Terry Cook, Dave Perry; Deputy Director Dave Mandyke; and engineers John Miller and Dave Nakagawara. There were a variety of issues discussed during the opening interview:
Although we were only with the City for a half-day, we did review the following Federal-aid project: Ray Street, FAP # STPUL-3997(001). The findings of our file review of this project include the following:
After completing our file reviews, we conducted a close-out session with the City's Real Estate staff. We presented the findings of our review and discussed the following recommendations and actions:
Attachment 6: Yakima County Review Results
The team visited Yakima County on March 28 & 29, 2002. We met with members of the County's staff, including Mike Waits, Connie Hauver, Jack Aquino, Michael Hill, Gary Ekstedt, Mark Brzoska, Bill Maggard, and Darwin Crenshaw There were a variety of issues discussed during the opening interview:
We reviewed the following Federal-aid projects: Roza Hill Drive, FAP # STPUS-4626(001); Tieton Drive, FAP # STPR-V394(001); and Wenas Road, STPR-Y395(002). The findings of our file review of these projects include the following:
After completing our file reviews, we conducted a close-out session with the County's Real Estate staff.. We presented the findings of our review and discussed the following recommendations and actions:
Based on the findings of this review, the Team offers several recommendations to further enhance the local agencies' capabilities in managing and implementing their right-of-way programs. We believe these recommendations will be of benefit not only to the five local agencies reviewed, but to other local agencies throughout Washington. Consequently, we propose to make wide distribution of this report and to implement these recommendations in a manner that may benefit all local agencies in the state.
Recommendation 1
All five agencies we reviewed indicated that training is a high priority and they welcome any opportunities that WSDOT and FHWA can provide. We found some areas-appraisal review, in particular-where agencies have a demonstrated need for more current training. The WSDOT and the FHWA Division Realty Officer hold workshops annually to update local agencies on right-of-way issues. The WSDOT invites local agencies to send their newer staff to Ken Leingang's "Charm School" (i.e., basic R/W training). And, WSDOT does periodically invite local agencies to specific training courses. However, more opportunities can be made available.
Consequently, it is the recommendation of the Team that WSDOT and FHWA work together to develop both a curriculum and a schedule of courses that will be available to local agencies on a continuing basis. There is an immediate need for the following courses: Appraisal Review; File Documentation; Administrative Settlements; and, Basic Uniform Act Requirements. Additional courses will be needed in all areas of R/W, including appraisal, negotiations, relocation assistance, and property management.
In order to implement this recommendation on a timely basis, the Team proposes that the FHWA Division Realty Officer meet with WSDOT Office of Real Estate Services' Training Coordinator to develop the curriculum and to begin scheduling these training opportunities. Other training resources, including NHI and the International Right of Way Association, will be utilized as appropriate; however, some of the courses they offer may be cost prohibitive to small local agencies. To accommodate those agencies' needs, trainers from WSDOT Office of Real Estate Services and from the FHWA Division Office can be utilized.
The Team also recognizes and commends Brad Thomas, WSDOT Relocation Manager, for his timeliness in addressing Pierce County's desire for Relocation Assistance training. The need was identified during our review of Pierce County the last week of February; five weeks later, in early April, Brad and his staff conducted this training for Pierce County and others.
Recommendation 2
The Team noted during our review that there are some areas of the right-of-way section of the LAG Manual (Local Agency Guidelines) which are not clear or are not working effectively for the local agencies. We found, for example, that the administrative settlement guidance as currently written in section 25.09(c) of the LAG Manual is used by some agencies as a "form" rather than a guide; the result is that while the format itself is followed, it may lack any substantive support for the settlement. We also found that the five-year experience criteria for review appraisers ("...to qualify as a review appraiser, an individual must have a minimum of five years of full time narrative real estate appraisal report writing experience...", LAG 25.052) is difficult for many local agencies to meet because of the "full time" experience criterion; very often, the local agency's workload and budget necessitate that a person doing appraisal review also do some negotiations or other R/W services.
Consequently, the Team recommends that the LAG Manual be reviewed and revisions made which will better enable local agencies to comply with Uniform Act requirements while recognizing their unique needs and structures. To accomplish this, we propose that the FHWA Division Right of Way Officer work together with the WSDOT Real Estate Services Local Program Coordinator to address these issues. They, in turn, will coordinate with the various program area managers (Appraisal, Acquisition, etc.), the Regions, and Highways and Local Programs to accomplish this in a timely manner.
Recommendation 3
The Team found that the local agencies generally have a very good relationship with the Region Real Estate Services local coordinator. However, both the agencies and the Region coordinators are concerned that they don't always get current information about the availability of training and workshops or about new procedures and forms. For example, in the City of Everett review we found that the City had not yet been informed of WSDOT's new "90-day assurance letter" which the Relocation section recently revised.
The Team recommends that the T2 center at WSDOT be utilized to assist in distributing current information to local agencies about training opportunities and other essential information. Also, we recommend that the Office of Real Estate Services ensure that the Region local coordinators are notified on a timely basis of training, conferences, workshops, and revisions of forms and procedures, and that the Region local coordinators make timely distribution of this information to the local agencies within their Regions. This effort can be coordinated with the T2 center to reduce duplication, although this is a situation where "too much" information is better than "not enough".
Recommendation 4
It was clear from our review that there are a variety of practices which different agencies utilize that are effective and could be useful to others. For example: The City of Everett does an extremely good job of organizing their parcel files; Spokane County makes effective use of an electronic data systems (CRIS) for accessing the County auditor's index of recorded documents; Yakima County has developed a strong relationship between their Real Estate staff and the County's engineers; the City of Spokane uses a system called Arcview to get ownerships, legal descriptions, and related property information; and, Spokane County does an excellent job with their appraisal review statements. The Team believes that the sharing of these and other best practices on a continuing basis would greatly benefit all local agencies involved with Federally funded right-of-way projects. One means of accomplishing this would be the continuing of annual reviews of local agencies and the wide distribution of findings and best practices with all local agencies.
The Team proposes that these joint reviews be made a routine function of the FHWA-WSDOT Stewardship Agreement and that the resulting reports from the reviews be distributed to all local agencies. As with this review, a major focus of future reviews will be on "best practices".
Recommendation 5
As is evident from the Team's findings and recommendations, timely distribution of information about training, procedures, and related issues is critical to the ability of the local agencies to comply with Federal and State requirements. As noted in Recommendations 3 and 4 above, good communications between the local agencies, WSDOT, and FHWA contribute immeasurably to our mutual success. An important tool that can be used to foster good communications is the Internet. During some of the informal discussions with local agencies and among Team members, the subject of a "case studies" site on the Internet was mentioned. The idea would be to have a site that someone could go to and read about how actual situations were handled and what worked and what didn't work.
The Team proposes that the WA Division Office consider adding a "case studies" feature to its website and use this as one means of communicating to locals how different procedures and practices are applied to "real world" situations. Of course, to make this site successful, input from WSDOT and local agencies would be necessary. To supplement that input, the Division can also use input from other Division Offices via the "Realty" group.
Attachment 8: Examples of "Best Practice" Appraisal Review Statements
Attached are two examples of appraisal review statements which we came across during our review and consider to be examples of "best practice" in the appraisal review process. Even though the appraisals themselves were fairly straightforward and non-complex, this reviewer complied with both Federal and USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) policies and guidance in developing and reporting "...a credible opinion as to the quality of another appraiser's work...". This reviewer's work follows Standard 3 of USPAP, which states that the reviewer's opinion about the quality of the product under review "...must encompass the completeness, adequacy, relevance, appropriateness, and reasonableness of the work under review, developed in the context of the requirements applicable to that work..."
The review team gratefully acknowledges Barry Lines of Spokane County, who made these examples available to us.
Example # 1
RE:____________
Owner: __________
Address: _____________
Date of Value: June 8, 2001
Date of Review: July 5, 2001
Property Interest Reviewed: Fee Simple
In the process of reviewing the appraisal, the subject and all the comparable sales have been inspected. All approaches to value have been considered, but the Sales Comparison Approach was deemed the most viable and reliable to arrive at the concluded value. The Cost Approach was based upon the Principles of Substitution and of Contribution and does support the concluded value but, given the age of the subject improvements was given limited weight in the comparison. The Income Approach was excluded from the appraiser's report and the review appraisal report.
The following is the appraiser's recapitulation: THE BEFORE AND AFTER FAIR MARKET VALUE DIFFERENCE IS $10,000.00
The subject property was described as a single family dwelling. The site is rectangular in shape. This site fronts ____ Avenue with 110 feet by 128 feet deep in the before. Spokane County Engineer's Office has calculated the site to be 14,106 square feet.
The appraiser appears to have correctly identified the property, the rights being appraised, and has estimated the highest and best use to be it's present use, "as if vacant for a single family building site." The appraiser has introduced six sales of vacant land in order to estimate the value of the site, as well as six improved sales in the before and then added two additional improved sales in the after.
I have inspected the subject, the sales, and the data from the appraisal report appears to adequately explain the steps taken in arriving at the value estimate. I feel that the estimated value difference of $10,000.00 is based upon sound reasoning, with the estimated value based upon documented and supported data. I concur with the appraiser's estimated value for the subject property.
Barry B. Lines
The following appraisals have been made on the subject property:
APPRAISER | VALUATION DATE | BEFORE VALUE | AFTER VALUE | VALUE DIFFERENCE | APPRAISER'S ALLOCATIONS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1._____ | 6/8/01 | $96,000 | $86,000 | $10,000 | TAKING $5,000 |
DAMAGES $5,000 |
2. |
The following prior certificates of value have been made on the subject property:
REVIEW APPRAISER | DATE - PRIOR DV | BEFORE VALUE | AFTER VALUE | JUST COMPENSATION | REVIEWER'S ALLOCATIONS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Barry Lines | 7/3/01 | $96,000 | $86,000 | $10,000 | TAKING $5,000 |
DAMAGES $5,000 |
2. |
Comments:
The appraiser completed a narrative appraisal report as contracted. The data used is adequate and relevant and any adjustments made to the date are proper. The appraisal methods and techniques used are appropriate. The analysis, opinions and value conclusions in the report under review are appropriate and reasonable.
I, the review appraiser, have both the experience and the knowledge to perform this appraisal review competently. Attached are my Appraisal Review Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and my Appraisal Review Salient Information which are made a part of this appraisal review report.
I inspected the subject property and the sales data used in the appraisal report on July 3, 2001 .
My value conclusions and appraisal review findings are as follows:
REVIEWER'S DETERMINATION OF VALUE (This Review) |
Reviewer's Allocation of Just Compensation |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
ACQUISITION: | ||||
VALUE BEFORE ACQUISITION: | $96,000 | Land | $2,400.00 | |
VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION: | $86,000 | Site Improvements | $1,400.00 | |
VALUE DIFFERENCE: | $10,000 | Improvements | $ | |
Damages | $3,000.00 | |||
Easements | $1,200.00 | |||
Sight restriction | $2,000.00 | |||
Total | $10,000.00 | |||
JUST COMPENSATION IS: | $10,000.00 | AS OF July 3, 2001 |
CERTIFICATE OF REVIEW APPRAISER
I, the review appraiser, certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
Example # 2
RE: Review Appraisal of Parcel No. _________
Owner: ______________
Address: ______________
Date of Value: April 26, 2001
Date of Review: May 14, 2001
Property Interest Reviewed: Fee Simple
In the process of reviewing the appraisal, the subject and all the comparable sales have been inspected. All approaches to value have been considered, but the Sales Comparison Approach was deemed the most viable and reliable to arrive at the concluded value. Therefore the Cost and Income Approaches were excluded from the appraiser's report and the review appraisal report.
The following is the appraiser's recapitulation: FAIR MARKET VALUE IS $14,900.00
The subject property was described as irregular in shape. This site has approximately 184 feet fronting ____ with a depth of approximately 304 feet. Spokane County Engineer's Office has calculated the site to be 51,199 square feet.
The appraiser appears to have correctly identified the property, the rights being appraised, and has estimated the highest and best use to be as if vacant for a multi-family building site of approximately eight units. The appraiser has introduced six sales of vacant land and 2 current listings of similar properties in order to estimate the value of the site.
I have inspected the subject, the sales, and the data from the appraisal report appears to adequately explain the steps taken in arriving at the value estimate. The appraiser indicated that historically easements that impact properties like the subject's carry a value of 75% of the market value. Though data was not provided to support this claim, it is reasonable to assume, given today's market and the zoning of the subject property, that the estimate of value of $14,900.00 is based upon a good understanding of the market and sound reasoning. The steps taken by the appraiser on this difficult assignment to arrive at the fair market value is seen in his work. I concur with the appraiser's estimated value for the subject property.
Barry B. Lines
The following appraisals have been made on the subject property:
APPRAISER | VALUATION DATE | BEFORE VALUE | AFTER VALUE | VALUE DIFFERENCE | APPRAISER'S ALLOCATIONS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1._____ | 4/26/01 | $78,000 | $63,100 | $14,900 | TAKING
|
EASEMENT $14,900 |
2. |
The following prior certificates of value have been made on the subject property:
REVIEW APPRAISER | DATE - PRIOR DV | BEFORE VALUE | AFTER VALUE | JUST COMPENSATION | REVIEWER'S ALLOCATIONS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Barry Lines | 5/14/01 | $78,000 | $63,100 | $14,900 | TAKING
|
EASEMENT $14,900 |
2. |
Comments:
The appraiser completed a narrative appraisal report as contracted. The data used is adequate and relevant and any adjustments made to the date are proper. The appraisal methods and techniques used are appropriate. The analysis, opinions and value conclusions in the report under review are appropriate and reasonable.
I, the review appraiser, have both the experience and the knowledge to perform this appraisal review competently. Attached are my Appraisal Review Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and my Appraisal Review Salient Information which are made a part of this appraisal review report.
I inspected the subject property and the sales data used in the appraisal report on May 14, 2001 .
My value conclusions and appraisal review findings are as follows:
REVIEWER'S DETERMINATION OF VALUE (This Review) |
Reviewer's Allocation of Just Compensation |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
ACQUISITION: | ||||
VALUE BEFORE ACQUISITION: | $78,000 | Land | $ | |
VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION: | $63,100 | Site Improvements | $ | |
VALUE DIFFERENCE: | $14,900 | Improvements | $ | |
Damages | $ | |||
Easements | $14,900.00 | |||
Sight restriction | $ | |||
Total | $14,900 | |||
JUST COMPENSATION IS: | $14,900.00 | AS OF May 14, 2001 |
CERTIFICATE OF REVIEW APPRAISER
I, the review appraiser, certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
I further certify if this determination is to be used in conjunction with a Federal aid highway project or other Federally funded project, none of the approved just compensation is ineligible for Federal reimbursement.