Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Untitled (12)
IL am �,� a City ® Yeln 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 FILE Yelm, Washington 98597 360 458-3244 March 26 1999 Q(IT �I Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Ps Tilc Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 ;5 � � RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for your efforts organizing our conference call with Mr. Johnson on February 26th of this year. I felt the dialogue was encouraging as we continue to structure the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview shortline ackage. As I understood our conversation, the BNSF would like to file with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for abandonment of the segment from Yelm to Roy. Under this scenario you suggest that the two cities as the "Prairie Line" could then file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) and urch?e the line at"net li uidation alue" (NLV). , fir,--If C', �`tr+_t '. �-` t) d� 9 ( 'c Since our conversation I have taken the opp�oiiiiity o TAWabandonment process and find that an abandonment would be a costly, risky and time-consuming process which ultimately would not be in the best interest of the City of Yelm, City of Roy or the "Prairie Line". Additionally, because we intend to continue service and actively attract new business on the"Prairie Line" an abandonment process would be an inappropriate transfer process. - 0 - ",_. I (?�J 1721,) - As I indicated during our conferenc all, shortline viability for the"Prairie Line" will require an interchange at Lakeview. The Cities of Yelm and Roy have (by Ordinance) created a rail operating agreement, and our short term and long-range planning and marketing efforts are contingent on havin a connection at Lakeview. Based on recent findings, the City of YWmrairie Line" will cover its operating costs with approximately 353 cars per mile/year consisting of local traffic, and 35 cars per mile/year through the Lakeview ' rchange. Future interchange traffic will be expected n , F - P .. to grow once the short line is in place. As you know, we plan to engage a shortline operator with proven operational and marketing experience, and these numbers may be on the conservative side, as a result. To expedite our discussions on the matter of a Yelm to Lakeview"Prairie Line" shortline, the City of Yelm proposes the following: 1. Combine all the BSNF assets including right of way, physical improvements, real estate, etc. of the Yelm, Roy, Lakeview segment of the"Prairie Line" into a short- line package. 2. Directly transfer the BNSF assets of the"Prairie Line" to the operating partnership established by ordinance between the Cities of Yelm and Roy. 3. Value the transferred assets at fair market value as a"going concern railroad" for donation purposes. The BNSF could then treat the transferred assets to the Cities as a donation in order to take advantage of a tax deduction, as has been done in other recent governmental transfers. 4. Include BNSF unit train operating rights to Ft. Lewis on a wheelage basis. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit rail users, increase cost-free traffic to BNSF, and meet our"Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. Feel free to call my office if you have any questions. I can be reached at (360) 458- 8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garma Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO 99-bnsf5b 2 March 24, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for your efforts organizing our conference call with Mr. Johnson on February 26t" of this year. I felt the dialogue was encouraging as we continue to structure the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview shor6ine. As I understood our conversation, the BNSF would like to file with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for abandonment of the segment from Yelm to Roy. Under this scenario you suggest that the two cities as the "Prairie Line" could then file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) and purchase the line at "net liquidation value" (NLV). Since our conversation I have taken the opportunity to research the abandonment process and find that an abandonment would be a costly, risky and time-consuming process which ultimately would not be in the best interest of the City of Yelm, City of Roy or the "Prairie Line". As I indicated during our conference call short-line viability for the"Prairie Line" would require an interchange at Lakeview . The City of Yelm and Roy have (by Ordinance) created a rail operating agreement. Our planning and marketing efforts are contingent on having a connection at Lakeview. As we intend to continue service and actively attract new business on the"Prairie Line" an abandonment process would be an inappropriate transfer process. Based on recent findings, the City of Yelm "Prairie Line" will cover its operating costs with approximately 353 cars per mile/year consisting of local traffic, and 35 cars per mile/year through the Lakeview interchange. Future interchange traffic will be expected to grow once the short line is in place. As you know, we plan to engage a shortline 1 operator with proven operational and marketing experience, and these numbers may be on the conservative side, as a result. To expedite our discussions on the matter of a Yelm to Lakeview"Prairie Line" shortline, the City of Yelm proposes the following: 1. Combine all the BSNF assets (ROW, physical improvements, real estate, etc.)of the Yelm, Roy, Lakeview seg- of the"Prairie Line" into a short-line package. 2. Direct transfer of the assets o that` rairie Line" to the operating partnership established by ordinance between the City of Yelm and the City of Roy. 3. Value the transferred assets as a donation. The BNSF could donate the transferred assets to the Cities in order to take advantage of a tax deduction as has been done in other recent governmental transfers. 4. Include BNSF unit train operating rights to Ft. Lewis on a wheelage basis. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit rail users, increase cost-free traffic to BNSF, and meet our"Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. Feel free to call my office if you have any questions. I can be reached at (360) 458- 8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO 99-bnsf5a 2 March 24, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for your efforts organizing our conference call with Mr. Johnson on February 26"' of this year. I felt the dialogue was encouraging as we continue to structure the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview shor�1'ne. As I understood our conversation, the BNSF would like to file with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for abandonment of the segment from Yelm to Roy. Under this scenario you suggest that the two cities as the "Prairie Line" could then file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) and purchase the line at "net liquidation value" (NLV). Since our conversation I have taken the opportunity to research the abandonment process and find that an abandonment would be a costly, risky and time-consuming process which ultimately would not be in the best interest of the City of Yelm, City of Roy or the "Prairie Line" . Additionally, because we intend to continue service and actively attract new business on the "Prairie Line" an abandonment process would be an inappropriate transfer process. As I indicated during our conference cal shore-line viability for the"Prairie Line" L require an interchange at Lakeview . The 1 y4o elm and Roy have (by Ordinance) created a rail operating agreement Our planning and marketing efforts are contingent on avin.g a connection at Lakeview Based on recent findings, the City of Yelm "Prairie Line" will cover its operating costs with approximately 353 cars per mile/year consisting of local traffic, and 35 cars per mile/year through the Lakeview interchange. Future interchange traffic will be expected 1 to grow once the short line is in place. As you know, we plan to engage a shortline operator with proven operational and marketing experience, and these numbers may be on the conservative side, as a result. To expedite our discussions on the matter of a Yelm to Lakeview "Prairie Line" shortline, the City of Yelm proposes the following: 1. Combine all the BSNF assets (ROW, physical improvements, real estate, etc.) of the Yelm, Roy, Lakeview seZth5at of the"Prairie Line" into a short-line package. sets2. Direct transfer of the as `Prairie Line" to the operating partnership established by ordinance between the City of Yelm and the City of Roy. 3. Valuation of the transferred assets at fair market value as a"going concern railroad" for donation purposes. The BNSF could then treat the transferred assets to the Cities as a donation in order to take advantage of a tax deduction, as has been done in other recent governmental transfers. 4. Include BNSF unit train operating rights to Ft. Lewis on a wheelage basis. The ownership and operation of the "Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit rail users, increase cost-free traffic to BNSF, and meet our"Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. Feel free to call my office if you have any questions. I can be reached at (360)458- 8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO 99-bnsf5/0 2 March 26, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line" =Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for your efforts organizing our conference call with Mr. Johnson on February 26t" of this year. I felt the dialogue was encouraging as we continue to structure the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview shortline package. As I understood our conversation, the BNSF would like to file with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for abandonment of the segment from Yelm to Roy. Under this scenario you suggest that the two cities as the "Prairie Line" could then file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) and purchase the line at "net liquidation value" (NLV). Since our conversation I have taken the opportunity to research the abandonment process and find that an abandonment would be a costly, risky and ti f�-consumi�X process which ultimately would not be in the best interest of the Citfof Yelm, f Roy or the "Prairie Line" . Additionally, because we intend to continue service and actively Irttract new business on the "Prairie Line" an abandonment process would be an inappropriate transfer process. As I indicated during our conference call, shortline viability for the"Prairie Line" will require an interchange at Lakeview . The Cities of Yelm and Roy have (by Ordinance) created a rail operating agreement, and our short term and long-range planning and marketing efforts are contingent on having a connection at Lakeview. Based on recent findings, the City of Yelm "Prairie Line" will cover its operating costs with approximately 353 cars per mile/year consisting of local traffic, and 35 cars per mile/year through the Lakeview interchange. Future interchange traffic will be expected 1 4 to grow once the short line is in place. As you know, we plan to engage a shortline operator with proven operational and marketing experience, and these numbers may be on the conservative side, as a result. To expedite our discussions on the matter of a Yelm to Lakeview"Prairie Line" shortline, the City of Yelm proposes the following: 1. Combine all the BSNF assets including right of way, physical improvements, real estate, etc. of the Yelm, Roy, Lakeview segment of the"Prairie Line" into a short- line package. 2. Directly transfer the BNSF assets of the"Prairie Line" to the operating partnership established by ordinance between the Cities of Yelm and Roy. 3. Value the transferred assets at fair market value as a"going concern railroad" for donation purposes. The BNSF could then treat the transferred assets to the Cities as a donation in order to take advantage of a tax deduction, as has been done in other recent governmental transfers. 4. Include BNSF unit train operating rights to Ft. Lewis on a wheelage basis. The ownership and operation of the "Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit rail users, increase cost-free traffic to BNSF, and meet our"Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. Feel free to call my office if you have any questions. I can be reached at (360)458- 8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO 2 ��► ser -6� Page 1 of 1 From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> 'To: 'Ken Garmann' <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 9:45 AM Subject: A few more suggestions Ken, Sorry, but I couldn't help tweaking a bit more. I played a little with the abandonment section - putting al I comments on that issue in a',separate paragraph (for emphasis, and clarity). Also, I reworked the line transfer valuation item - this is really what we want them to do. If they transfer by donation a "going concern" business, they will be entitled to a greater tax deduction. This sweetens the deal for them - by raising the $. 1 think a deduction on fair market value may beat a transfer at NLV. Perhaps you could have an accounting type give us some rule of thumb about how much of a deduction is needed to cover a dollar of profit. By the way, you can get all of BNSF's SEC filings on the internet by clicking on this http://www sec gov/cci-bin/srch-edgar�Burlington+Northern+Santa+Fe Let me know what you think of these changes. SLD i 3/26/99 IS Page 1 of 1 From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: 'Ken Garmann' <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 9:25 AM Subject: RE: final draft of the #3 letter to BNSF Yes, I agree. I think you have established that batie is the detail guy, but you are negotiating with BNSF, not Rich or even Jerry. I don't think they will try tl`IUT`piss-off to Batie trick again soon. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Garmann [mailto:garmann@yelmtel.com] Sent: Wednesday,March 24, 1999 7:48 AM To: Steve L.Day - Subject: final draft of the#3 letter to BNSF Steve, Attached is the (hopefully) final draft to the BNSF ! ! , of this letter. I scooted a copy to Charlie, and will also deliver one to Joe/John to review. Please note, I made some minor alterations to our conversation last night, and, droped the cc to Jerry Johnson. I did this to establish bond with Rich Batie, and also to acknowledge at this time, I am dealing directly with him. Do you agree on this? ? Thanks for your comments. KLG 3/25/99 CITY OF ROY POST OFFICE BOX 700 ■ ROY,WASHINGTON 98580-0700 ■(253)843-1113 ■ FAX(253)843-0279 ■ OPEN 8:30-5:00(M-F) March 17, 1999 FILE COPY Mayor Kathy Wolf City of Yelm PO Box 479 --- -----Yelm, WA 98597 - - -- - - ---- - ------ - -- – – — – RE : Prairie Line Rail Advisory Committee Dear Mayor Wolf : It is my understanding that the City of Roy has three (3) seats on the Rail Advisory Committee to include the Mayor and two (2) appointees . On behalf of the City of Roy I wish to appoint Mr. Barrie Wilcox of Wilcox Family Farms, Inc. and Mrs . Lisa Kittlesby of Miles Sand & Gravel, Inc . and I, Joel A.; Derefield, Mayor of the City of Roy, will also be representing the City. If there are any questions or comments regarding these appointments, please call . Thank you, Joel A. Derefield Mayor, City of Roy a C'� Page 1 of 7 C-r-r From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: 'Ken Garmann' <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 10:35 AM Subject: RE: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel Ken I think I can save them - in fact, now that you mention it... today I will retrieve them all and print them out. I will get you a set. i I totally agree with your analysis. I am not sure if the T&E connection would be good to discuss with Batie. That is how we can route, around BNSF if'they won't give us decent rates. We can get Barry connected up to UP for competitive feed component rates form the midwest. NOT good news for BNSF who wants to use its captive shipper poser to keep Barry's rate's up. really would like to geta good third party rate analysis for both Wilcox and Miles. Perhaps they would agree to commission a private study. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann@yelmtel.com] j Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 7:13 AM To: Steve Subject: Re: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel Steve, Good Morning ? ! !, I will address your last comment first, Yes ! there is the potential to reload east of 1-5 which in fact as we saw friday would place less of a traffic impact on local roads & traffic than dumping the reload near the interchange on the west side of 1-5. The other question is a matter of the economics of Miles cost per cu. yd. vs. the cost to ship via rail per cu. yd. We will have to determine what our cost will be per whatever the measure is and see how it compares. One fact tho, the business would be the backbone of the operation with its steady revenue stream. Also, the fact;that Miles will want to own their own cars is a bonus in that the cost will not factored into the short-line cost per what ever. Steve, I hope you are saving these comments as I try to copy and insert into the file but I am not sure I can save my stuff, and with my crs situation I forget easly. In fact, I forgot that I wrote the original note to you yesterday. Thanks, KLG -----Original Message----- From: Steve <sdayaa bpmlaw.com> To: 'Ken Garmann' <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 3:24 PM Subject: RE: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel 3/17/99 Page 2 of 7 >Actually, with no union and low maintenance I think 40 per mile might be a >good rule general of thumb. But you are working with long distances and low >value bulk commodities. >Interesting new about the tie in to TC. But, I am still worried about a >reload with a low value commodity. Of course since they are looking at a >big chunk of Pierce rather than just to that local site... It would be >better if you could cut-off short of 15 and go directly into their Lakewood >site. Is that possible? > >SLD > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann@yelmtel.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 1:02 PM >To: Steve >Subject: Re: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel >Steve, >1 had a long conversation with Lisa K. of Miles Sand & Gravel this morning >and she indicates a strong commitment to ship via rail to a reload point for >distribution through out Pierce County. Also, she told me which I have not >heard yet, that they own the land over which a interconnect could be built >to the Tacoma & Eastern near their mining operation. These answers could 90 >a long way toward answering Rich Batie questions as to the potential of our >short-line. >1 will begin to draft a letter to Rich and hope to have it to you',soon. >Perhaps I will be able to e-mail it ! ! As I understand it from our mutual >friend 50 cars per mile/year is the desirable ratio for success'. >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve <sday�bpmlaw.com> >To: Ken Garmann <garmann0_yelmtel.c6m> >Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 8:46 AM >Subject: RE: Abandonment procedure >>Sound like you got Ray "on-board" Did it look possible to set up a spur? >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann a�yelmtel.com] >>Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 7:43 AM >>To- Steve >>Subject: Re: Abandonment procedure >>Steve, Ray & I had a good look at the situation in Lakewood and Ray has a >>new "improved" appreciation for what we are doing, once he stood on the i 3/17/99 Page 3 of 7 >>ground. Thanks for the additional information, I have not yet down loaded >>to read but as sure there are some good nuggets in the mix. I am totally >>out of the NCAA after Utah yesterday but, G00000 Zaga ! ! . The Stanford »game made it all worthwile. »-----Original Message----- >>From: Steve <sdayabpmlaw.com> »To: Ken Garmann <garmann(awelmtel.com> >>Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 .6:12 PM >>Subject: RE: Abandonment procedure >>>There is one more which I think went out yesterday or today. I am really >>>hoping you guys can find some way tomorrow to make this "connection" work. >>>SLD >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann(cD-yelmtel.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 3:01 PM >>>To: Steve >>>Subject: Re: Abandonment procedure >>>Steve, How in the heck did you know I wanted to talk to you?, out of the >>>clear blue is your message re: Abandonment Procedure. I just spoke to Ray >>>Allred a few moments ago regarding the DOT-Rail Match to our grant and he >>is >>>ready to process any invoices we have., My question is, do I have all of >>>your invoices. To date I can account for (good thing I am good with math), >$7,201.20. Unless you have a current invoice ready to deliver in the next >>>day or so I will forward this amount to Ray for reimbursment. >>>Can you believe the "golden goofers"?, hope the zag's take it ! ! I'll >>stand >>>by for your reply. thanks klg. >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Steve <sday6d)_bpmlaw.com> >>>To- Ken Garmann <garmann a_yelmtel.com> >>>Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:56 PM >>>Subject: Abandonment procedure »»Ken, this is a typical abandonment procedure. You will notice the »»solicitation for OFAs. I really hope you can convince BNSF that this is >>>the »»wrong way to go. I think they are open to a shortline, if they think it >>is i 3/17/99 Page 4 of 7 ' »»viable. Otherwise, from their point of view, it's better to terminate >>common carrier obligation and be done with it. That way the property >>>doesn't .»»come back to haunt them. >>>> ».»30065 >>SERVICE DATE - MARCH 11, 1999 »» »»DO »»FR-4915-00-P »»DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION »»Surface Transportation Board »»[STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1)] »»Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C.--Abandonment--In Sumner, Harper, »»Barber, »»Reno and Kingman Counties, KS »» »»On February 19, 1999, the Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C. (KSW) filed >>with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) an application to abandon: >(1) »»a line of railroad known as the Hardtner Branch, extending from milepost »514, at Conway Springs, to milepost 571.85, at Kiowa; and (2) a portion >of >>>a »»line of railroad known as the Stafford Branch, extending from milepost »»559.028, at Conway Springs, to milepost 610.0, at Olcott„ at total >>distance »»of 108.8 miles, in Sumner, Harper, Barber, Reno, and Kingman Counties, >KS. »»The line includes no stations and traverses U.S. Postal Service ZIP Codes »»67031, 67106, 67118, 67014, 67622, 67068, 67121, 67004, 67049, 67003, >>>67061, »»and 67070. »»The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way: Any >>>documentation »»in the KSW's possession will be made available promptly, to those >>requesting »»it. The applicant's entire case for abandonment (case-in-chief) was filed »»with the application. »»This line of railroad has appeared on'the applicant's system diagram map 3/17/99 Page 5 of 7 >>or »»has been included in its narrative in category 1 since August 20, 1998. »»The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions >set »»forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 »»(1979). »»Any interested person may file with the Board written comments concerning »»the proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire »»opposition case) by April 5, 1999. All interested persons should be aware »»that, following any abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, >>>the »»line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. >>Any »»request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905(49 CFR 1152.28) >or »»for a trail use condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must >be »»filed by April 5, 1999. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a >>>$150 »»filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). Applicant's reply to any opposition »»statements and its response to trail use requests must be filed by April >20 »1999. See 49 CFR 1152.26(a). »»Persons opposing the proposed abandonment that wish to participate >>actively »»and fully in the process should file a protest. Persons who may oppose >the »»abandonment but who do not wish to participate fully in the process by »»appearing at any oral hearings or by submitting verified statements of »»witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Persons >>>seeking »»information concerning the filing of protests should refer to 49 CFR »»1152.25. Persons interested only in seeking public use or trail use »»conditions should also file comments. »»In addition, a commenting party or protestant may provide: »»(i) An offer of financial assistance (OFA) for continued rail service »»under 49 U.S.C. 10904 (due 120 days after the application is filed »»or 10 days after the application is granted by the Board, »»whichever occurs sooner); »»(ii) Recommended provisions for protection of the interests of employees; »»(iii) A request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 110905; and »»(iv) A statement pertaining to prospective use of the right,of-way for »»interim trail use and rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and »»49 CFR 1152.29. »»All filings in response to this notice must indicate the proceeding 3/17/99 Page 6 of 7 »»designation STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1) and must be sent to: (1) »»Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, »»1925 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Karl Morell, Ball »»Janik LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005. The >>>original »»and 10 copies of all comments or protests shall be filed with the Board >>>with i »»a certificate of service. Except as otherwise set forth in part 1152, >>every »»document filed with the Board must be served on all parties to the »»abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1104.12(a). »»The lines sought to be abandoned will be available for subsidy or sale >for I >>continued rail use, if the Board decides to permit the abandonment in »»accordance with applicable laws and regulations (49 U.S'C. 10904 and 49 »CFR »»1152.27). Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. See 49 CFR »»1002.2(f)(25). No subsidy arrangement approved under 49 U.S.C. 10904 >shall »»remain in effect for more than 1 year unless otherwise mutually agreed b .»»the parties (49 U.S.C. 10904(f)(4)(B),). Applicant will promptly provide . .>>>upon »»request to each interested party an estimate of the subsidy and minimum >>purchase price required to keep the line in operation. The carrier's »»representative to whom inquiries may be made concerning sale or subsidy »»terms is set forth above. »»Persons seeking further information concerning abandonlment procedures may »»contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer >>to »»the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions >concerning »»environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of >>>Environmental »»Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. [TDD for the hearing impaired is >>>available »»at (202) 565-1695.] »»An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement >(EIS), »»if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record >>and »»upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. »»Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or »»EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available >>within »»33 days of the filing of the application. The deadline for submission of »»comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. The 3/17/99 • Page 7 of 7 »»comments received will be addressed in the Board's decision. A >>supplemental »»EA or EIS may be issued where appropriate. »»Board decisions and notices are available on our website at »»"WWW.STB.DOT.GOV." »»Decided: March 3, 1999. »»By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. »»Vernon A. Williams »»Secretary 3/17/99 GSL Page 1 of 7 -v From: Steve <sday@bpmiaw.com> To: 'Ken Garmann' <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 10:35 AM Subject: RE: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel Ken I think I can save them - in fact, now that you mention it... today I will retrieve them all and print them out. I will get you a set. I totally agree with your analysis. I am not sure if the T&E connection would be good to discuss with Batie. That is how we can route around BNSF if they won't give us decent rates. We can get Barry connected up to UP for competitive feed component rates form the midwest. NOT good news for BNSF who wants to use its captive shipper poser to keep Barry's rates up. really would like to get a good third party rate analysis for both Wilcox and Miles. Perhaps they would agree to commission a private,study. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann@yelmtel.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 7:13 AM To: Steve Subject: Re: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel Steve, Good Morning ? ! !, I will address your last comment first, Yes,! there is the potential to reload east of 1-5 which in fact as we saw friday would place less of a traffic impact on local roads & traffic than dumping the reload near the interchange on the west side of 1-5. The other question is a matter of the economics of Miles cost per cu. yd. vs. the cost to ship via rail per cu. yd. We will have to determine what our cost will be per whatever the measure is and see how it compares. One fact tho, the business would be the backbone of the operation with its steady revenue stream. Also, the fact that Miles will want to own their own cars is a bonus in that the cost will not factored into the short-line cost per what ever. Steve, I hope you are saving these comments as I try to copy and insert into the file but I am not sure I can save my stuff, and with my crs situation I forget easly. In fact, I forgot that I wrote the original note to you yesterday. Thanks, KLG ----- mal g' Message-----Original a----- From: Steve <sday(6_bgmlaw.com> To: 'Ken Garmann' <_garmann(cr�yelmtel.com> Date- Tuesday, March 16, 1999 3:24 PM Subject: RE: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel 3/17/99 Besides the freight traffic, the line is an excellent candidate for a commuter rail operation from Yelm into Lakeview. Sound Transit has recently selected a site located immediately adjacent to the junction of the branch line with the BNSF line which will carry commuter rail into Tacoma and on to Seattle. This is an opportunity to tap into an important passenger transportation system for very modest costs.. The acquisition, maintenance, .and operation costs for a freight rail operation on the line have been estimated and are tabulated below. The costs for maintenance and operations represent anticipated costs for the first year of shoreline operation. Acquisition Costs $ 150,000 Maintenance of Track and Structures 150,000 Operations 100,000 Total Costs $400,000 As an indication of the level of commitment in the community, the City of Yelm has enlisted financial support for the project from a number .of sources to.provide matching funds for the funds are approximately 15% of the grant request amount and are well grant. These committed. in excess of the minimum required by the program. This substantial assistance from the public and private sectors demonstrates the importance of this rail line to the communities and businesses which it serves. The matching funds for the grant are being contributed as follows. City of Yelm $ 20,000 r,•-m-r -T 20 00 U tlA 11� �` of•Olympaa 4 ,� � ,., r Vit fV ..rW_SD.OT-'. Rall Program a 500^ Private Businesses' - 'Z D" !m( C 7 ri t; les Sa&TCn va elva a D" 7 2,500 ' iTotal Matching Funds?F _"$:60000 ?j In -closing, this project represents. a unique opportunity to.preserve and enhance a vital transportation link in Thurston County: The continued availability of freight rail service to the Yelm and Roy areas is vital to business-retention and development. It can.provide-a multi-modal freight option. One of the existing.:businesses has the potentialfor removing 200 truck.trips per day off the road.network Rail served industrial properties in the-region-are.at a premium. Many new businesses will not even look-at sites which do not have the capacity to be served-by.rail. Beyond the freight rail operations, this line provides`the ability to connect to the commuter rail system being developed by,Sound Transit. This is a unique opportunity to provide passenger rail -options.to an area which is experiencing fast-paced growth with its associated traffic congestion. We believe that this project is one which must be undertaken. Thank you for your consideration Yf you.have any questions,please contact my office at'360-458-8499. Sincerely, kJ41 t City of Yelm .��2 Ken Garm Public Works Director pfc THF A� A � CityO ehn 105 Yelm Avenue West Y E LM P.O. Box 479' �? WASHINGTON Yelm, S Washin ton, 98597 F11 F .,. (360) 458-3244 March 16, 1999 Ms. Lisa Kittelsby Miles Sand & Gravel P.O. Box 130 Auburn, WA 98071 Re: Yelm To Lakeview BNSF Branch Line Acquisition Dear Lisa, Thank you for taking the time this morning to discuss the Yelm to Lakeview BNSF Branch Line Acquisition and other railroad issues that relate to; your gravel operations. After our conversation, several thoughts came to my mind, which would really assist our cause with the BNSF negotiations. Perhaps you would be willing to furnish the following information: 1. A letter to my office committing Miles Sand & Gravel to service on the"Prairie Line". This is optional; however, the BNSF is looking for the"Prairie Line" short- line operation to be financially self-sufficient. A commitment from Miles Sand & Gravel would be a strong statement to the BNSF. 2. A map showing the location of your Pierce County batch plants that would be serviced from a re-load facility. 3. A map of the property that abuts the Roy pit and is adjacent to the Tacoma&Eastern rail line. 4. A rough estimate of what your current cost per ton/cubic yard to truck to the Lakewood facility. Your assistance on these questions will be greatly appreciated.,If you have any questions or comments, feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499. Sincerely, dity of Y m 'Ken Gar4nn Public Works Director cc: file i Page 1 of 6 From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: 'Ken Garmann' <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 3:24 PM Subject: RE: Lakeview reload/Miles Sand & Gravel Actually, with no union and low maintenance I think 40 per mile might be a good rule general of thumb. But you are working with long distances and low value bulk commodities. Interesting new about the tie in to TC. But, I am still worried about a reload with a low value commodity. Of course since they are looking] ooking at a big chunk of Pierce rather than just to that local site... It would be better if you could cut-off short of 15 and go directly into their Lakewood site. Is that possible? SLD -----Original Message----- From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann a�yelmtel.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 1:02 PM To: Steve Subject: Re: Lakeview reload/Miles S Gravel Steve, I had a long conversation with Lisa K. of Miles Sand & Gravel this morning and she indicates a strong commitment to ship via rail to a reload point for distribution through out Pierce County. Also, she told me which I have not heard yet, that they own the land over which a interconnect could be built to the Tacoma & Eastern near their mining operation. These answers could go a long way toward answering Rich Batie questions as to the potential of our short-line. I will begin to draft a letter to Rich and hope to have it to you soon. Perhaps I will be able to e-mail it ! ! As I understand it from our mutual friend 50 cars per mile/year is the desirable ratio for success. ----- rigina essage----- From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 8:46 AM Subject: RE: Abandonment procedure >Sound like you got Ray "on-board" Did it look possible to set up a spur? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann(a-)_yelmtel.com] >Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 7:43 AM 3/17/99 Page 2 of 6 >To: Steve >Subject: Re: Abandonment procedure > >Steve, Ray & I'had a good look at the situation in Lakewood and Ray has a >new "improved" appreciation for what we are doing, once he stood on the >ground. Thanks for the additional information, I have not yet down loaded >to read but as sure there are some good nuggets in the mix. I am totally >out of the NCAA after Utah yesterday but, G00000 Zaga ! ! . The Stanford >game made it all worthwile. >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve <sday(a_bpmlaw.com> >To: Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> >Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 6:12 PM >Subject: RE: Abandonment procedure >>There is one more which I think went out yesterday or today. I am really >>hoping you guys can find some way tomorrow to make this "connection" work. »SLD >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ken Garmann [mai Ito:garmann(awelmtel.com] >>Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 3:01 PM >>To: Steve >>Subject: Re: Abandonment procedure >>Steve, How in the heck did you know I wanted to talk to you?, out of the >>clear blue is your message re: Abandonment Procedure. I just spoke to Ray >>Allred a few moments ago regarding the DOT-Rail Match to our grant and he >is >>ready to process any invoices we have., My question is, do I have all of >>your invoices. To date I can account for (good thing I am good with math), »$7,201.20. Unless you have a current invoice ready to deliver in the next >>day or so I will forward this amount to Ray for reimbursment. >>Can you believe the "golden goofers"?, hope the zag's take;it ! ! I'll >stand >>by for your reply. thanks klg. >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Steve <sday(d)_bpmlaw.com> >>To: Ken Garmann <garmannwelmtel.com> .>>Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:56 PM .>>Subject: Abandonment procedure i >>>Ken, this is a typical abandonment procedure. You will notice the >solicitation for OFAs. I really hope you can convince BNSF that this is >>the >>>wrong way to go. I think they are open to a shortline, if they think it 3/17/99 Page 3 of 6 >is >viable. Otherwise, from their point of view, it's better to terminate >>>common carrier obligation and be done with it. That way the property >>doesn't >>>come back to haunt them. >30065 >>>SERVICE DATE - MARCH 11, 1999 >>>DO >>>F R-4915-00-P >>>DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION >>>Surface Transportation Board >>>[STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1)] >>>Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C.-- Abandonment--In Sumner, Harper, >>>Barber, >>>Reno and Kingman Counties, KS >>>On February 19, 1999, the Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C. (KSW) filed >>>with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) an application to abandon: »(1) >>>a line of railroad known as the Hardtner Branch, extending from milepost >>>514, at Conway Springs, to milepost 571.85, at Kiowa; and (2) a portion of >>a >>>line of railroad known as the Stafford Branch, extending from milepost >>>559.028, at Conway Springs, to milepost 610.0, at Olcott, at total >distance >>>of 108.8 miles, in Sumner, Harper, Barber, Reno, and Kingman Counties, KS. >>>The line includes no stations and traverses U.S. Postal Service ZIP Codes >>>67031, 67106, 67118, 67014, 67622, 67068, 67121, 67004, 67049, 67003, »67061, >>>and 67070. >>>The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any >>documentation >>>in the KSW's possession will be made available promptly to those >requesting >>>it. The applicant's entire case for abandonment (case-in-chief) was filed >>>with the application. >>>This line of railroad has appeared on the applicant's system diagram map >or >>>has been included in its narrative in category 1 since August 20, 1998. 3/17/99 Page 4 of 6 >>>The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set >>>forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 >>>(1979). >>>Any interested person may file with the Board written comments concerning >>>the proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire >>>opposition case) by April 5, 1999. All interested persons should be aware >>>that, following any abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, >>the >>>line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. >Any >>>request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905 (49 CFR 1152.28) >>or >>>for a trail use condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be >>>filed by April 5, 1999. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a »$150 >>>filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). Applicant's reply to any opposition >>>statements and its response to trail use requests must be filed by April »20, >>>1999. See 49 CFR 1152.26(a). >>>Persons opposing the proposed abandonment that wish to participate >actively >>>and fully in the process should file a protest. Persons who may oppose the >>>abandonment but who do not wish to participate fully in the process by >>>appearing at any oral hearings or by submitting verified statements of >>>witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Persons >>seeking >>>information concerning the filing of protests should refer to 49 CFR >>>1152.25. Persons interested only in seeking public use or trail use >>>conditions should also file comments. >>>In addition, a commenting party or protestant may provide: >>>(i) An offer of financial assistance (OFA) for continued rail service >>>under 49 U.S.C. 10904 (due 120 days after the application is filed >>>or 10 days after the application is granted by the Board, >>>whichever occurs sooner); >>>(ii) Recommended provisions for protection of the interests, of employees; >>>(iii) A request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905; and >>>(iv) A statement pertaining to prospective use of the right-of-way for >>>interim trail use and rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and >>>49 CFR 1152.29. >>>All filings in response to this notice must indicate the proceeding >>>designation STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1) and must be sent to: (1) >>>Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, >>>1925 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Karl Morell, Ball >>>Janik LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005. The >>original >>>and 10 copies of all comments or protests shall be filed with the Board >>with 3/17/99 Page 5 of 6 >>>a certificate of service. Except as otherwise set forth in part 1152, >every >>>document filed with the Board must be served on all parties to the >>>abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1104.12(a). >>>The lines sought to be abandoned will be available for subsidy or sale for >>>continued rail use, if the Board decides to permit the abandonment in >>>accordance with applicable laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. 10904 and 49 >CFR >>>1152.27). Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. See 49 CFR >>>1002.2(f)(25). No subsidy arrangement approved under 49 U.S.C. 10904 shall >>>remain in effect for more than 1 year unless otherwise mutually agreed by >>>the parties (49 U.S.C. 10904(f)(4)(B)). Applicant will promptly provide >>upon >>>request to each interested party an estimate of the subsidy and minimum >>>purchase price required to keep the line in operation. The carrier's >>>representative to whom inquiries may be made concerning sale or subsidy >>>terms is set forth above. >>>Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may >>>contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer >to >>>the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning >environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of >>Environmental >Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. [TDD for the hearing impaired is >>available >>>at (202) 565-1695.] >>>An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), >>>if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record >and >>>upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. >>>Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or >>>EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available >within >>>33 days of the filing of the application. The deadline for submission of >>>comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. The >>>comments received will be addressed in the Board's decision. A >supplemental >>>EA or EIS may be issued where appropriate. >>>Board decisions and notices are available on our website at >>>"WWW.STB.DOT.GOV." >>>Decided: March 3, 1999. >>>By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. >>> 3/17/99 Page 6 of 6 >>>Vernon A. Williams >>>Secretary 3/17/99 FROM :WSDOT RAIL 360 706 6821 19 03-15 08:19 #445 P.01/09 .d. �' ,� � VrFffl Washington State Facsimile Transmitfial Department of Transportation DATE TIME NO.OF S(lncl,Trens.) ❑Call for Plckup b;�Qeliver T FR _ Ray Allred, hail Plai g_Specialist UC)CA7101;F— LOCATION WSDOT Rail Office VOICE PHONE N0. FAX PHONE NO. VQICE NO. AX PHON s . (360) 705.7903 (360) 705-6821 COMMENTS NOTICE: Some fax machines produce copies on.thermal paper. The image produced is highly unstable and will deteriorate significantly in a few years. This record should be copied on a plain paper copier prior to filing as a record. DOT FQrM 700.050 EF Revised 9194 �■ �■ .r, O - ' �1. �A• � .f. I .. I -AMY I RIGHT: With SP buslrless cars at left,a Rabanco +'•ipl,t� 4''�a' y 1 x ` container is held aloft before being placed on a _ �' Il,• flatcar during the E1 opening ceremonies for the South Napa site on �. June 29 1995. — Y r I � Sts W�`P"!lu,i•.>•-.• ' ,•�.. Q,rti t 1 . . �, I 111 � - •t ' /^fJ� ?. �i`�L 72 � 4N �Sl � .. i t •�T7 ��� I t ri�r✓r t�+�/, r�yt'�A� 0, 1 k - � C r It I�:_ r ,ti.4 I �ltl)•tiIr ( �rl.I ,r.fl tsl'. California N orthern's ft , �' '+ _ l t lA - 't 11 tt t.' 1 \1t l , � t11 Napa Trash Trains t l iia;` j7. 'lc:xt& Plaatograplay by Sean Z%vzgernlan fi;Nv niiles suuth Ld C llifornia's Napa \'Illc:}t elect St)uthClll Pacific's Napa Malley Blanch; Inday it is luluwn WL11-It-1WILtC [01-It'superb wtllt-h a1•I 1 hi- the rqutc,of the. Napa valley Wine 'llaill• which Car- °c:olly fur its ca•tlsh Of tuurisls, iS a lithe-kno\url ries lc,urisis lu,liled with �vinu. NorthwCs('21n I'ac:if is pal;a thl'ctugh 111e Iiay Arca foodlill:; cElllcd fanlesoll hati just ont, a:ustonler left in Nicirin. and tho N01-111 CunVun, rlf�er the.dcnli,u 5U jrt tl E1ZU of Ncn-tilw,:.i- COLIq limber inelUslry has been ltl dechne. 1'nr ducades. ern I'aeilic's rail ferry bet\vvui)'I'iburull allil San Iran- In 1093. $1, i'i•eed of tilt, sdfl�llvillc 13rtnlch -i c:u, Bull on C<ulyon served t,. the funnca fctr the through Jameson Canyon tlnd its dwindlint; t- i4. vcllLill riliuus ruilruEld tl-IN fic Cullingfrorll the: Sul-KIIiial Calikwnia Nurlhurrl RailroElil leal ecl tilt, line and has rand Nana vane}`s, �gcuin Cuunl}a and ihk North Coast dilicenti}+ ..vctn back ilisgrunticd shippers an(1 lured lumber region, '1-odily. the line through dlc: tie,liu111a new ones. Today. this lino is busy unto again; V,llley is nothing, but tl yuldu111-used, tw+;t-mile spur fclrnia Nc�lll?ern 11:1ove.s about 200 cars 170r day' ndink tit t) turl:c_} Iarnl•'franlluads ctf tVllle Once ll'114+- throuL•h lanle'scill Conyon. I Ile- $eeI1C is t)+(?ICaI of the 54•March 1999 -■ ■■ � �U U � � U U� ri _ q p_ )7 a t�?rdlr i Y'' x c il ? t.. a W11 `` IL F� ',. r y� li •.:�.L- ,.�-,� -9y .J1, '� ,`' r 1 � ;� • � 1 �� , .nr}exi rT,T`t -���". ''1 i,Y }i7'ay�t�j'� xtA 1'.• ..;. 1' �� _. - it 4 _ :�, g d 1l ttlti i�t� t t!l 1 1r t Fti l i�11'i / r �t 1 yi I I t 12 r I I ! t;�l�ij' ti"{r�t'r 't`I rl ,,,IYF� ? ti ► �i ,�f� t :I i r r7tr.IJ l i T1 �I it i'IQ11#k Int}Y ,t i�-! ;I l it r ��t} ( r •'� + .' s - I,� J1� �j �'r.�` � .`1,•/ i ''i-'i l'j i ./_�I:(t./ 11 ,� h �, r I�,_ `,1 11'7 I ,11 I•I'{ � i1�V rl lr � f�:��il� 1l� '~ J�1 F;I � ! lr.. •}� 1 S1• t� .i-}r ll� Ff, 1i 14• V': ylt J.`/ t'L,1 !_ ' 7 r l - I'�r ` I � iFl� l,t IIJJff tl �.I�. i�\c�47 �Ii:,i � i � 4 �` i,��r !. .�ttr. �h +� �- Lr�l,i l'4 ,f��,{4 J, P t ..'I t t` y.l i 'Itlt '.1.•. ! ` �.+ , ,l,' � ,. � ` i .,J� y. ��} Ir '�r• .t"t � r I ! r 1 ttyl! I r l f \ -! i it - i_I t 1. 1:r I L .i ij`'�_,+ / �� r`t' i Y .f Jtir a'Y � li� r: 1 z L Y.�I.I:I � Y����t-� 11 } 4 i`� r 1111 'f � ' � t �'. it I��i •t� It I.�I� i J�•. _'1 � + � 1 11 }r 4 "3�, !. , t,1 t '• I I 1,, I 1 �' ' t II , y ;,tt � 11 lilt.,� ♦`1, ;i t 't I ilt r ,ri,fl LJr+ J ,tis , i I� _ y f I�fl+1� 'ktl � f ', '�( tl ` { 1 i + t t1E` i 1 1 ,t �. i ( If•, i f i{.` 1 ct,� , r r + •� 1i1 r I 1S r , tj �l.,Il�j .r3. (.iy�,�,rt {4 is t�J.rfl. ttl• �Iili 15. +'I� •, rl ' - � i � l ' '� .� +, J I♦ (.. t 11.1A t t� I11 4 ! ' 1l t I/1�f r} `it t 11 ,:i l;+ d ` ri ;I ttl-e ,. ti t, ' i. �:,t •^I b. 1�fu-"'-'ti.�,+. t S 5 'lr� �,tf I ,�� + f i � : � + /, � I I R�� }� a� �r,.( :j, re., Ir li I I Ir,'�y yI i Illil�ll r ..—'�- - ,I 1 ` t +: '�. t• i.I:..l d�A' � 'L+f�.Illt... 'S' ..�� ,- �,''tif __ .. � �. . .! _. I:!li �.., r. '.: � I�S.::"�IC modern regionol short Pint;: Scvcral GP1.5s strain to Burlington Northern c4, Santa fie. What vital trade ABOVE:Normally UP and Crag over the tiummit a long rrnin with tht,.. varird hring9 these titans onto the rails of a C,alifvrnia BNSF each provide one prol'ile incl pal.chwork colors of it rnixed Freight. short line' What niagical cargro is shed northward locomotive to power the cars carry Flour For Ilse General Mills plant at out of the Colden State in these gleaming HLIC con- trash train,but occasion- jo, lumber and chicken iced for MVP at SChel- tiliners'? For awifv, in Roosevelt, Washington, (Ile ally two units from the and ellormous steal pines lroin the Napa Pipc blue steel Nil-0,1111reachcS its destination and dis- same road will appear,as plant at Rocktram. But about twice per week, it charges its precious freight! MSW. QlherwiSO on December 7, 1995, train of olicl blue rdides through the pass, it sen-pcn- known as municipal solid waste. Otherwiso known when SP SD40-2R 7346 tine rcflccrion of the_ California ski', a seasonal as garbage. Roosevelt is a galling luodfill which will and SNOT-28381pulled slream flowing toward San Francisco Bay. Guiding consume 120 million toll:; of trash over (he next 40 the empty trash train over the blue train arc the powerful locomolives of iwo years. including; the garbage California Nor•f.hern the summit at Creston. of t4ie nation's great railroads. Linion Pacific and hauls out of Napa iunCtion in LhC)Se long bltie (rains, `' RailNews•55 FROM :WSDOT RAIL 360 70S 6821 3103-16 08:21 #44S P.04/0S Burlington'-,,-e,ithern SD40-2 and a Southern Pacific tunnel motor—leaves the acid hills of Roosevelt on BNSF, bound for Napa_ At Klamath Falls, Oregon, the BNSF crew hands the southbound train over to UP. From there, the train enters the high plains of Northern California,makes its descent along the vol- cane slopes of Mount Shasta,and eases to a stop be, +° TIV .'! side the icy clear waters of the upper Sacrainento Riv- ..a. .�• ,':.,.tip. �i:r,i�%' r, �':: •: earl 300 miles away in American iip�;.,: er, at Dtmsmutr. Nearly Y Canyon,a computer screen in the California Northern offices gives advance notice that a trash train is on its - way.Back in Dunsmuir,a fresh crew guides the train r slowly down out of the Trinity Range before crossing Lake Shasta and speeding across the Sacramento Val- ley into Roseville. After another quick crew change, the empty trash train turns southwest and travels.60 miles to Suisun. The crew takes a cab back to Ro- seville,and UP's role is finished. Soon a white Carryall with a California Northern AiBOVe Galifornia North- The blue containers are owned,by the Rabanco emblem on the door Pulls up in a•plume of dust ern 107 leads SP Corporation, the largest"waste by rail'"carrier in the next to the locomotives_ Behind the engines, 3,000 SD70M 9808, 6N country and partners with Klickitat County,Washing- feet of blue containers, stacked two high on yellow SD70MAG 9627,and the ton, in developing the Roosevelt site. At least six flatcars, taper into the distance in the siding at Su- inaugural train out of trains are dedicated specifically to serving the landfill !sun_ A conductor and engineer climb out of the Napa on June 29, 1995, at Roosevelt, carrying about 200 containers per day Carryall and onto the locomotive. Soon the trash seen here between between the landfill and nine intermodal hubs in train is passing the ranches and vineyards, the dry Rabanco's South Napa Washington and California. Every four days or so hills and oak tirees, of Jameson Canyon_ Since SP facility and Lombard. train of empty containerson occasion led by a leased this line to California Northern in 1993, the C7 If ti t J V. °• Tet _ .i„ �• a: 1.1- : r!r�a �\ 1 e� r � , �. .L,:�z •�`�• y -�'a 1••1 0.�P':< .6—r .1 .._1 �: � :1 ! .1• \.t i L'e 3/11,1" u�•. 56-March 1999 FROM :WSDOT RAIL 360 70S 6821 3.03-1S 08:22 #445 P.OS/09 ` , A + Y w 7. ,�" q.•t--' .fir {h y ' d.sy" �:• `;;tyF•+K'"• � i�� t• ,�` �rY.fJ' - • a, -.i1 -� � .�'.°.).. ..�•'•'• J� ,.� `adlti! 1y�'„jiJt�y, '•+ `,�- �w..°,,: :,,,:• k . I.,.:,: 5th- 'f x •� � t. �••,, •'i,'•�. � ?acs'�, } "' �, Y�7T.` �".,�, '�.-:Y�+a'`'�j,. ie.i•j':� �•• � '4 t It k' 5, y'`u•` :r a' l' hollow rattling of GP1.5s has joined the lowing of down by a giant press, the same technology we use on ABOVE;Burlington cattle and the hum of the`adjacent highway as one Sunday nights when we jump up and down on our Northern SD40-2s 8139 of the-familiar sounds in Jameson Canyon. Tlic jet-' garbage cons. The trash is not sorted until it reaches and 8134 lead the etnp- like whine of larger locomotives and their earth- Washington, though heavy construction materials go ties through Jameson shaking vibration seem foreign and improbable into separate 20-foot containers at Napa. Canyon,followed by the here;the trash trains seem too big for the track and if all goes well,a loaded train of 50 to 40 cars-60 Fairfield Switcher,also out of scale with their surroundings. Rounding the to 80 container s—••-will be ready to go east shortly after returning to Lombard,on wye at Napa Junction, the train pulls into the yard the big engines bring an empty container train down April 3, 1996. at Lombard in the small town of American Canyon. the hill into Lombard, Whenever possible,California Once the big engines are removed from the ears, Northern likes to combine the loaded trash t'r'ain with the Napa Switcher--powered occasionally by GP15 the daily general freight, running a single, massive 106—begins to pull the train apart and shuttles cuts train over to Suisun in the afternoon-it is not unusual of empty containers up the Napa Branch to the South for such a train to consist of 40 loaded double stacks Napa Solid Waste Management site, located about ' from Rabanco, 40 loaded pipe cars, and an equal one mile north of Lombard.Tie landfill at Roosevelt number of general merchandise cars.Recently,accord- represents the state of the art in garbage.Pipes collect ing to conductor. Scott Lefler, these combined trains the leachate—the smelly, runny stuff that leaks from have been up to 10,000 feet long..ln addition to the garbage—and recirculate it through the landfill to powerful road units on the point, these enormous promote faster decomposition. Other pipes collect:the trains require a couple of: GP1.5s. either mid-train or methane produced by the rotting trash,which is cots- on the rear,for the push over the 1.8 percent grades of versed to electricity.The Napa site on the other hand, Jameson Canyon. If, however, the trash'train is ready though efficient and inexpensive, is decidedly low- to roll earlier in the day,California Norther will run it tech. Garbage trucks come to dump their household as a separate train. "The minute it's loaded and built," wastd, and tired, sway-backed pickups line tip to uh says John Speight, California Northcr's assistant vice burden themselves of garden trimmings and construe- president of marketing,"it's gone." tion materials. The trucks dump this pwpourri of This is not a train the folks of American Canyon stivill onto a concrete floor where bulldozers pile it in- want lingering any longer than necessary. The three to the big blue containers. The trash is then mashed railroads tend to keep the trash trains moving swiftly, RallNews•57 � -.....� ..._.-. r. n ..- ,r.•.�•e,.+s.rpm4'•mw.e,c.�•- a_r:.iy,rrrn•-�,Po.rR.vr':�+':�: FROM :WSDOT RRIL 360 70S 6921 9103-iS Oe:23 #44S P.06/09 FAR RIGHT:On April 3, for although thy go is not perishable,it is pungent. expense ti,.�Wermg the trains, each contributing one 1996,ON SD40-23 8139 For anyone standing beside the tracks,there's no'mys- locomotive.This leads to some interesting and color- and 8134 lead the emp- tery what this malodorous train carries as it speeds by ful combinations: UP, SP, Chicago &North Western, ty trash train—symbol on its northbound journey to Roosevelt. Out despite and all the colors of the current.Burlington Northern KFCJU--westbound on their distinctive bouquet, the blue containers were & Santa Fc rainbow have preceded the long blue SP's Sacramento Line at carefully designed by Rabanco specifically for hauling streak over Jameson Canyon. Cannan,six miles from trash. They are specially sealed, water-tight, and ac- The need to slice the profit thinly onto the plates turning the train over to cording to Speight,,"You could probably posh one of all three railroads also explains the routing of the California Northern at over a cliff and it wouldn't break." When packed to Rabanco train through Northern California. Jf the Suisun-Fairfield. capacity,one container holds 30 tons of MSW At that train were to travel on California Northern's West weight the containers are not street legal; in fact, it Valley Subdivision from Tehama to Davis instead of would take three containers hauled by trucks to carry UP's parallel East Valley Line,its journey would be 25 the same load as two containers on a flatcar.Thus the miles shorter,and California Northern would increase trash train is not only well engineered and environ- its profit on the move. But such an arrangement mentally safe,it is efficient and economical. would simply not be worthwhile for UP, so instead From California NQrthern's perspective, the i,-ash the trash train runs on.UP all the way to Suisun.As a BELOW:On February 26, train"is a good move for us," says Speight, although result, all three railroads get a small, consistent re- 1996,BN SD40-2s 7123 it is more profitable to haul pipe and lumber. Just as ward for their participation in the 1.0-year contract, and 7253 roar as they recycling is a nickel and dime affair.,none of the par- which began in 1995. Perhaps the biggest beneficiary haul 34 cars of loaded ticipatirig railroads are turning this trash into gold. of the Rabanco operation is Klickitat County. In a re- trash containers and 28 The cost figures are very close on shipping garbage gion suffering from the chronic effects of the declin- loads of pipe up the 1.2 7.10 utiles from Northern California to Roosevelt, ing timber industry, the Roosevelt landfill brings,a percent grade to Cre- Were UP to list its most important and profitable unit restorative infusion of$5 million to 56 million per Ston.Pushing on the trains, the Rabanco trash train would be for down on year. There are modest benefits for customers in the ' rear end are California that list. The narrowness of the profit margin de- Bay Area as well. A rancher whose land borders the Northern GP15'105 and mands a unique level of cooperation among the par- Calif'orraa Northern near the small town of Cordelia SD9 200. ticipating carriers. Union Pacific and BNSF share the told me that he saves money trucking his garbage i W;'•' Y.. — _ o 4M i•;ti.., 58 March 1999 FROM :WSDOT RRIL 360 70S 6821 ,03-15 08:24 #445 P.07/09 1F v..:r ���ti•r 1-� m a , �7�-:�''Y�.e.; ))7 ri'. F ..�i �� �_'': ' ,5,'1.:f y tit -f �A,�.t 5rJt S yy }, :C it ..4'->•�'�'• L •).+ A tir.~ :oT. _'sem'•_' _ _ � �Jy.-u � - � .•�aa�'�i�;"'�• } a_r.«;:_,,. Jr}-y. i :r �,a_r rr•'s IG'+ ,F Rtt �''H!*§ �l:,c_ a .'�a ..t r fr a�yti, .F>. _ rM� -tnS� r-} irk,: a•r "-t'�?c `f l^` - •P '.�.�T1 �r�aiD`r'�J� �`:.c '�".•gin='r'� �^ • °'t yY;� T �>>is a +. ?`�Y�'�,,r�.' �r :.•v>- ^�,� �.xiy5�y - n� +p -n��4� �k w r ,,;�.,�. �.�r� br. 5� y. ..� s`" >ru�� t�r Cr�'!'E'�ur •t,y. 1 j�,f���ia`''S'7'`� 'b+i` 3!rl > a yt�- 1>gs.y',y;.�a'" ,. -' � Y �' � 'y, f°-.,�.L. y y ,M �,� Y s 4 o J .,:; ♦ .� uWr"Al J�'� ♦ '..•_ _�?� � ,�j 3 's h•,�-`.'T• < � :> �'rs 1 s ♦: �-;r _w�,`� J':' � � ti<•:1� �r fs bPiJ• �f ax d,tyi e>}rc3ca�.-�- �•s. � �ti t ��s i -F TAY' �.Vs tp dy3�19 q d Br +" r �-9P#•"0""$'w]�� ,` JY"�N6aR§k`��3'f'� 2r a r o ,lP rt. s vS r a •li r -. I�:Y'e �% ..x, t .K i" ..,.�br 4 k.-'� _ f`" L t -. t• a.1 C.rt ` I 3i �,3{r, ys'�•� i is=' '.t ',-��.�(� �y,e sd�� ��•. �� ` s��� aj s Cs ~y ��'y <Y�r � � ~P �.�r '� y�i:i � �:� /,f a'%w"'� > •9:��k �wS Sr�'�. :.: '3ti,: a t s.-¢ •+'r +, s alr r 1.+:�r"i, x. 'a` ��-r f L -`a 'y`♦F.3� a' -E_•' Yx ;< < rs�`"'.► Y?�-'r ;-rts.� s?z.+��a,- \.,4�4s-ci Cr_,y�c t.sc:�+�.r��'r. •y pig-�7'r-. J� e��. � �+-,�t`�rd�'• ~ X +� rrtt Y�-� 4 u'�' 7 ,n( S`ti ya J� .�' '. y* Y' a 7f' a ry, v'C _,,{��,4ti-+ s't'lFk'•��a¢^�. �s on- f`�]'� f ��'�� - � 7 '� rU7 � ,. � W �n:t-uo�'� ' tF-'.. �+ f>y •C �$s.`�ir cs�i_r�,.. r r'��t �r.I�= i'4 „ n'' ..r f�F� _✓..�r. 4 R..N,','4.` �^ - .�... y�+.. N x.•, ��Li t,•-�+�..'�1`"v SS7•, .J r, Y� - lti - �,Yr;}i .a�V•�i�"`Yds/ •>;ti.-tea. i. �!�- .. ..�`�y amu^ •.c�.r�j_, '-rte• II r�� •" ti.it •�,Y}_�"..`. � I' 1 FROM :WSDOT RRIL 360 705 6821 1,03-15 08:26 #445 P.08/09 Ta' R. ABOVE:On October 17;1998,California Northern 110 and 103 have Joined UP 041Q 3836 and DASHS-40CW 9418 in hauling,a 4D-mrtrash train into Suisun-Fairfield.Having cut outthe 110 and 103,the California Northern crew here re-attaches 3836 and 9418 to the loaded trash train.The train will sit here at Suisun for several hours waiting far the UP crew to take It east . RIGHT-Burlington Northern&Santa Fe SD40.2 6947 and Heim Leasing SD40-3 6512 haul the loaded trash train eastward through Jameson Canyon on March 13, 1998. BELOW:Southern Pacific SD40T 2 8535,BNSF SD45-2 6504,and C&NW DASH8-40C 8529 haul loaded cars out of Rabanco on October 2, 1998, over to Nara rather than going to the closer landfill in Solano County. "The place in Napa is clean, it's in- doors, and you don't have the wind blowing a hurt- dyed miles an hour like over here in Solano." The blue containers of the Rabanco Corporation are now a familiar sight on the railroads of the West, and the movement of waste by rail—by Rabanco and others—will no doubt become even more common. In mid-1999, towns like Eureka And Arcata in the far northwestern corner of California plan to begin ex- porting their,garbage via NWl? Unfortunately, last winter's storms moved several mountainsides onto NWP along the Eel River,and the Iine remains partial- ly closed and nearly bankrupt.For now,Eureka trucks its trash north to Medford, Oregon. In Southern Cali- fornia,where the population continues to swell expo- 60•March 1999 FROM :WSDOT RAIL 360 705 6821 ,03-15 08:27 #44S P.09/09 � 7ytY1:. - YJ•' k OF r' nYyr • .......:....,. . .-... .•. _. ..:::... ... :�:.: ... •�� - inti.. :1,! (.. ::yl:�::. nentially, urban and suburban dumps have had their the idea of filling the Eagle Mountain Mine with ooz- fill and are closing.East of the Los Angeles basin,the ing garbage, given the mine's proximity to,the Joshua vast and valleys which may once have been viewed as Tree 1rJilden�esS,For now,Orange County is providing landfill country are instead being trashed with housing inexpensive disposal. But it is, to be sure, a matter of developments,thus simultaneously increasing the pro- time before Los Angeles puts the waste into this duction of waste and complicating the problem of its wasteland, and the dusty scent of desert sage is adul. disposal. In the not-so-disrant future, any enormous terated by the smell of diesel e-xhaust, old beer cans, and remote hole in the ground will be considered valu- and empty bottles of Suntan lotion, A society built on able real estate.Amid the creosote bushes and ocotillo ever-expanding consumption is bound to produce an of eastern Riverside County,the rusting rails and sun- increase of waste. Until this equation and its signifi- bleached ties of the Eagle Mountain mining railroad cance command more attention, perhaps the best we wait for the day when Los Angeles is finally over- can do is move the mess around,The big blue contain- whelmed by its own excreta and looks for. salvation in ers leaving the Bay Area through Jameson Canyon rep- the bottomless mining pit at the and of this abandoned resent a reasonable,if temporary,response for a grow- railway. 'But environmentalists who appreciate the ing society of waste-,producers living ort a finite s alien beauty of these desert mountains are alarmed at amount of land. RuMeivs f RallNews•61 t L✓5, Page 1 of 3 From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:56 PM Subject: Abandonment procedure Ken, this is a typical abandonment procedure. You will notice the solicitation for OFAs. I really hope you can convince BNSF that this is the wrong way to go. I think they are open to a shortline, if they think it is viable. Otherwise, from their point of view, it's better to terminate common carrier obligation and be done with it. That way the property doesn't come back to haunt them. 30065 SERVICE DATE - MARCH 11, 1999 DO FR-4915-00-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1)] Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C.--Abandonment--In Sumner, Harper, Barber, Reno and Kingman Counties, KS On February 19, 1999, the Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C. (KSW) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) an application to abandon: (1) a line of railroad known as the Hardtner Branch, extending from milepost 514, at Conway Springs, to milepost 571.85, at Kiowa; and (2) a portion of a line of railroad known as the Stafford Branch, extending from milepost 559.028, at Conway Springs, to milepost 610.0, at Olcott, at total distance of 108.8 miles, in Sumner, Harper, Barber, Reno, and Kingman.Counties, KS. The line includes no stations and traverses U.S. Postal Service' ZIP Codes 67031, 67106, 67118, 67014, 67622, 67068, 67121, 67004, 67049, 67003, 67061, and 67070. The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in the KSW's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The applicant's entire case for abandonment (case-in-chief) was filed with the application. This line of railroad has appeared on the applicant's system diagram map or has been included in its narrative in category 1 since August 20, 1998. 3/17/99 Page 2 of 3 The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). Any interested person may file with the Board written comments concerning the proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire opposition case) by April 5, 1999. All interested persons should be aware that, following any abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905 (49 CFR 1152.28) or for a trail use condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be filed by April 5, 1999. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). Applicant's reply to any opposition statements and its response to trail use requests must be filed by April 20, 1999. See 49 CFR 1152.26(a). Persons opposing the proposed abandonment that wish to participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest. Persons who may oppose the abandonment but who do not wish to participate fully in the process by appearing at any oral hearings or by submitting verified statements of witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Persons seeking information concerning the filing of protests should refer to 49 CFR 1152.25. Persons interested only in seeking public use or trail use conditions should also file comments. In addition, a commenting party or protestant may provide: (i) An offer of financial assistance (OFA) for continued rail service under 49 U.S.C. 10904 (due 120 days after the application is filed or 10 days after the application is granted by the Board, whichever occurs sooner); (ii) Recommended provisions for protection of the interests of employees; (iii) A request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905; and (iv) A statement pertaining to prospective use of the right-of-way for interim trail use and rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 49 CFR 1152.29. All filings in response to this notice must indicate the proceeding designation STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005. The original and 10 copies of all comments or protests shall be filed with the Board with a certificate of service. Except as otherwise set forth in part 1152, every document filed with the Board must be served on all parties to the abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1104.12(a). The lines sought to be abandoned will be available for subsidy or sale for continued rail use, if the Board decides to permit the abandonment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. 10904 and 49 CFR 1152.27). Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). No subsidy arrangement approved under 49 U.S'.C. 10904 shall remain in effect for more than 1 year unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties (49 U.S.C. 10904(f)(4)(B)). Applicant will promptly provide upon request to each interested party an estimate of the subsidy and; minimum purchase price required to keep the line in operation. The carrier's 3/17/99 Page 3 of 3- representative representative to whom inquiries may be made concerning sale or subsidy terms is set forth above. Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available. at (202) 565-1695.] An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 33 days of the filing of the application. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. The comments received will be addressed in the Board's decision. A supplemental EA or EIS may be issued where appropriate. Board decisions and notices are available on our website at "WWW.STB.DOT.GOV." Decided: March 3, 1999. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams Secretary 3/17/99 i MAR-04-1999 18:43 �77 A k-A- P.01 BETTS PATTERSON &MINES, P s. 800 Financial Center j 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Phone: 206-292-9988 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Ken Garmann FAX NO. : (360) 458-4348 OF: City of Yelm FROM: Stephen L. Da v OUR FILE: 57820001 i RE: Abandonment Procedure NO. OF PAGES (INCL. THIS PAGE) : 3 DATE: 314/99 Please call (206)292-9988 (Ext, 557) if you do not receive any of these pages or if there is a problem. PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY: (_) NOTE: I realize now that I probably gave you a copy of this article before. I guess I have to get some new material. The point is, I have tried to get the STB to waive the OFA procedure for abandonments involving transfers to public entities such as Cities. No dice. They feel compelled to allow bidding l under the OFA process. This whole thing is complicated if there are any reversionary property rights. I know the Yelm to Centralia part was all fee simple ownership. . . but if there is any rail easement on the remainder of the Prairie Line, once abandonment is granted it automatically reverts. Keep in mind that Washington law favors a finding of rail easement over fee simple if there is any ambiguity in the deeds or title documents. And, Courts always find something that needs interpreting. i THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU i ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (206) 292-9988, AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. I MAR-04-1999 18:44 P.02 — ' PATTERSON CFO &MINES,PS. alp Fhuncw center M5 Fourth Avenue SeuOw Washington 98161-1090 tm to6343-7053 Ftwne:206.292A988 ptions on Little-Used Line sinpper s 0 s unauthorized service abandonment would be the shipper's added ' costs resulting from the railroad's unlawful act,such as transload By S t E P H E NL costs or higher charges for substituted motor carrier transporta- I Our company uses a rail carrier at one of our plant tion. the Interstate Commerce Commission sites.There are only two other shippers on this Before its elimination, branch line and overall traffic has been decreasing routinely handled public inquiries and complaints-about rail ser- over the last several years.The track has deteriorated due to lack vice.Many times shippers were unable to get complete or accu- of maintenance and we understand an embargo may be placed '; rate information from railroads about their intentions on reinsti- against traffic moving on this line because of safety concerns.We tution or abandonment.The staff in the[CC field offices would are very dependent on rail service.What options do we have? attempt to obtain information for shippers and to informally mediate these disputes.If no resolution was accomplished they There are several options available to a shipper, i might undertake investigations on alleged failure of service by ` depending upon the particular circumstances railroad-carriers. See e.g., G.S. Roofing Products Co. Inc. V. involved.If service has ended without Surface Trans- Arkansas Michaud Railroad et al.,STB Docket No.41230,decided portation Board approval,a shipper may file an € March 5, 1997. If an investigation determined there was an informal or formal complaint with the STB.In addition a shipper unlawful abandonment,the ICC had.authority to seek a federal may have a damages action against the railroad.Another alterna- court order(injunction)directing railroads to reinstitute service tine is to find a willing shortline rail operator to purchase the line or formally seek ICC abandonment authority.Sometimes a carni- or,if applicable,file a feeder line application with the STB to force er was found to have unlawfully abandoned service over a line the railroad to sell the line.If the railroad has filed with the STB ' under the pretext of a safety-related embargo. for authority to abandon service.over the line,the shipper may As the ICC successor,the STB does not have a field staff nor participate in the proceeding and oppose abandonment,offer to-: does it have the informal dispute mwlution resources of the ICC. subsidize continued service,or buy the line.These options will be The STB retained the authority to seek court injunctive orders and has the power to issue injunctive-type orders in administra- discussed below. five proceedings,both of which could be used to order a railroad to reinstitute service.The.STB has not used its court authority Discussion: nor are there any reported circumstances where it has used its Railroads have a common carrier obligation to provide new administrative authority in this area.However,a recent rs service to shippers located on their lines upon reason- ul making proceeding mayclarify when the STB will consider using able request(49 U.S.0 11101(a)).If a carrier is unable to provide its powers in unlawful service abandonment situations service over a line due to track conditions such as flooding or ; The STB has instituted a proceeding to consider the circum- conditions such stances under+vhich the STB should require a railroad to operate bridge failures or because of similar temporary as strikes,the railroad may enter an embargo against traffic over over excepted track that does not meet FRA Class 1 standards. that line and file notice of that embargo with the Association of s Service obligations Over Excepted Track(Ex Parte No.564,May 7, American Railroads.An embargo is a temporary measure intend- 1997).The Federal Railroad Administration enforces rail safety ed to stop traffic being routed over a line while the railroad ': laws and can determine if a track is unsafe for operations.The resolves the disability.If a rail carrier chooses to permanently ter- lowest track standard is Class 1,which does not allow operating minate service on a line,it must first obtain abandonment speed in excess of 10 mph.The STB's notice of proposed rule- approval from the STB(49 U.S•C 10903). making acknowledges that the ICC historically approatdled these If the railroad has embargoed traffic for an extended period of kinds of cases on a case-by-case basis.An example ICC is time and is making no effort to reinstitute service,shippers may _ approach is Overbrook Farmers Union Coop.Association. have a damages action against the carrier.See Overbraok Farmers ? 3I6(1989),the underlying ICC administrative determination of Union Cooperative Association vs.Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.,21 unlawful abandonment,which was the basis for the 10th Circuit's F.3d 360(Ioth Circuit 1994), I994 U.S.App.Lexis 5971.Cases of Overbrook Farmers Union case cited above.The present rule- this sort are fact-specific and it is difficult to summarize the fac- making seeks to determine when it might be appropriate for the tors that generally would be viewed as constituting an unreason- STB to order railroads to provide service over track that does not able embargo.It is likely the courts would look to the STB for a i meet Class 1 track safety standards. ore determinati6n of whether the facts established the railroad had ; In the event a railroad files_for formal abandonment pshipper efn abandoned service without STB approval.Also,the STB's aban- the STB to terminate its common carrier obligation,a donment authorization ends the period for which the shipper the line still has several options. The sl"ppez Wold m oPli : tion to the abandonment and challenge the carrier's assertion may seek damages.The measure of damages for the period of 54•trafficW0RLU •lune 9,I997 MAR-04-1999 18:45 P.03 i that the line is unprofitable or is too costly to repair and operate. : in formulating its own shoreline development processes in Cana- The shipper also may consider whether it should offer a subsidy da in the early 1990s.A balance needs to be struck between ship- to the railroad for continued service.If the shipper does not want .= per service needs and allowing unprofitable lines to be sold, to pay a subsidy,it may consider purchasing the line directly and spun-off or closed.Rail shippers need to assure themselves of operating the shortline railroad or finding a shoreline operator to ; future real services in order to move their products to market take over operation of the line.The latter options can be accom- without allowing unfettered line closures or bankrupting carriers, pushed under the offer of financial assistance"or"OFA"provi- It is this balancing of public needs that the STB is charged with sions in 49 U.S.C.10903.See also,49 C.F.R. 1152.27 performing under the abandonment statute,49 U.S.C. 10903. The questioner does not indicate whether that particular The growth of shortline and regional railroads and their suc- branch line is subject to abandonment on the carrier's system : cess contributed to the success of rail deregulation Often,short- map.If the line is listed,the shipper or shortline operator may line operators can provide rail services with a much-reduced cost make a feeder line application under 49 U.S.0 10907 A feeder structure and therefore are able to provide rail service over short- line application procedure is a type of forced sale for continued ' er lines with fewer carloadings than would be economical for rail services.Of course,if a shortline operator is willing to pro- Class I railroads.The growth of shortline railroads under deregu- vide service,the most direct method would be simply to have lation has allowed smaller shippers and geographically isolated that operator purchase the line from the carrier.A direct transfer 's shippers to continue to receive rail services,both in the United to an operator could be accomplished under 49 US.C. 10901 or States and in Canada. 10902. Clearly railroads should be able to shed themselves of unprof- Finally,a shipper could approach the STB with an informal or itable lines and not be forced to subsidize shippers located on formal complaint.Although not indicated in the question,the those lines.This right is recognized by the STB(and formerly the issue of alternative modal service is important.The shipper will. ICC)in administering 49 U.S.0 10903 to allow carriers to aban- have a better chance in a damages action and in obtaining STB don unprofitable and uneconomic lines.The STB must,however, action if it is truly a rail-captive shipper because of the nature of balance the shipper's—and the public's—right to rail service its commodity or lack of effective alternative transportation. s against the carrier's right to make economic decisions on uses of Although the STB,and formerly the ICC,had injunctive authori- their priorities. ty to force railroads to provide service,shippers lost this right in 1976 when the 4R Act specifically eliminated the shipper's private Response to this question was contributed by attorney Stephen L. right to bring injunctive actions. € Day, Betts Patterson&Mines PS,Seattle. (206)292-9988. Send The ICC published a pamphlet entitled"So You Want to Start questions to Trak World QerA Editor,1230 National Press Build- a Small Railroad."The Canadian National Transportation Agency ing, Washington,D.C.20045,or Paul H. Lamboley, 1020 19th St. used this pamphlet and the ICUs feeder line and OFA procedures NW,Suite 400,Washington,D.C.20036,fam(202)293-6200. TOTAL P.03 Page 1 of 2 (�rzC--., From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: March 04, 1999 3:15 PM Subje : BNSF Ken, I got it! Thanks I am really quite concerned that BNSF says they want to use abandonment, and I want to explain my concerns I think the very best way to protect you is a direct transfer. This is also much simpler for BNSF than going through an abandonment fight.. The compensation can be negotiated, but the method must be a direct sale to the City. Use of abandonment carries a huge risk of losing the line . I am faxing you an article I wrote awhile back on abandonment. The process is that the RR files with the STB for abandonment of its common carrier duty to serve. The pubic is given notice and anyone can file an OFA (offer of financial assistance) to acquire the line.. ostensibly to continue service, but that can be a ruse. The RR can choose among bidders, but a disgruntled r bidder can force the STB to determine a fair value for the line. The problem here is that once that is done, BNSF officials will have a hard time NOT selling to the high bidder because they will have to answer to stockholders. It IS a publicly held company. So they will mislead you and then say, "gosh, we must do what's best for our stockholders or they will sue us.. so sorry,!". There is a case in Colorado right now where A&K the salvage company bid under the OFA program to defeat the County's interests. They will hold the line for a minimum 2 years and then tear it up and sell off any remaining real estate interests. You would not want to get in a bidding war with them. BNSF can promise they won't deal with "outsiders" but they do a large number of deals with A&K, they are on the "bid list", a group of'bidders they give early notice to, for abandoned properties. I will give BNSF the benefit of doubt here.. they may be confused about the preferred process because trail people and those interested only in preserving a corridor have to go through abandonment to get to "rail banking." But, abandonment terminates the common carrier duty to serve. Not our desire here. You don't need abandonment for you purposes, and using abandonment will only give BNSF political coverage when you don't get the line. At worst you will be in a dollar bidding war and have to pay premium dollars. This issue is so critical that it is worth a fight... either up the BNSF chain or a political fight. ... or both. 3/4/99 Page 1 of 2 AJK From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:15 PM Subject: BNSF Ken, got it! Thanks I am really quite concerned that BNSF says they want to use abandonment, and I want to explain my concerns I think the very best way to protect you is a direct transfer. This is also much simpler for BNSF than going through an abandonment fight.. The compensation can be negotiated, but the method must be a direct sale to the City. Use of abandonment carries a huge risk of losing the line . I am faxing you an article I wrote awhile back on abandonment. The process is that the RR files with the STB for abandonment of its common carrier duty to serve. The pubic is given notice and anyone can file an OFA (offer of financial assistance) to acquire the line.. ostensibly to continue service, but that can be a ruse. The RR can choose among bidders, but a disgruntled bidder can force the STB to determine a fair value for the line. The problem here is that once that is done, BNSF officials will have a hard time NOT selling to the high bidder because they will have to answer to stockholders. It IS a publicly held company. So they will mislead you and then say, "gosh, we must do what's best for our stockholders or they will sue us.. so sorry,!". There is a case in Colorado right now where A&K the salvage company bid under the OFA program to defeat the County's interests. They will hold the line for a minimum 2 years and then tear it up and sell off any remaining real estate interests. You would not want to get in a bidding war with them. BNSF can promise they won't deal with "outsiders" but they do a large number of deals with A&K, they are on the "bid list", a group of bidders they give early notice to, for abandoned properties. I will give BNSF the benefit of doubt here.. they may be confused about the preferred process because trail people and those interested only in preserving a corridor have to go through abandonment to get to "rail banking." But, abandonment terminates the common carrier duty to serve. Not our desire here. You don't need abandonment for you purposes, and using abandonment will only give BNSF political coverage when you don't get the line. At worst you will be in a dollar bidding war and have to pay premium dollars. This issue is so critical that it is worth a fight... either up the BNjSF chain or a political fight. ... or both. 3/17/99 FEB-27-1999 16:27 �d L, �z,. P.01 N Law Offices �� A/0—CL BETTS PA,TTERSON &MINES, Ps. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenin Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Phone: 206-292-9988 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Ken Carmann FAX No. : _(360) .458-4348 OF: -City of Yelm FROM: Ste hen L Day OUR FILE: 52150000 RE: As Discussed NO. OF PAGES (INCL. THIS PAGE) : 6 DATE: 2126199 Please call (206) 292-9988 (Ext. 557) if you do not receive any of these pages or if there is a problem. NOTE: Please see correspondence of February 26, 9„999 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICA'T'ION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (206) 292-9988, AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. FEB-27-1999 16:28 P.02 Law Offices BETTS PrATTERSON &MINES, P.S. 800 Financial Center. 1215 Fourth Avenue wattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Phone; 206-292-9988 Stephen L. Day email: sday®bpmlaw.com February 26, 1999 Via F csi ile 360 458 348 Ken Garmann Director, Public Works City of Yelm 105 Yelm Ave. W. P.O. Box 479- Yelm, WA 98597 Re: Materials Referenced by J. Johnson Dear Ken: This forwards a May 7, 1998 letter to the Surface Transportation Board from a Mr. Richard Welch. Mr. Welch's letter is, I believe, the "trouble" that Mr. Johnson referred to. Please call me if you have;aneyF,tyioo,, s. rs, S SLD:cpb Enclosure 990570120/022699/1620/52150000 FEB-27-1999 16:28 P.03 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD Docket No. 544X SEA LION RAIGROA,D ABANDONMENT mIvI nw IN KING COUNTY,wA9NINGTON COMMENTS TO TM PETITION FOR EXEMPTION ThsNatimW AsaogWaa of Reversionary Property Ownars(NARpO) SO-S05 Gamed Traverse Ave, LaQuinta CA 92253 760-771-94S9 May 7, 1998 The National Association of Reversionary property Owners(NARpO)is a nationwide organization*0 protects the rights of property owners on railroad fights of way and also shippers of goods on railroads and other forms oftransportatfon. NARPO has members that own the.right of way Iand on fife proposed sbandontnent AB-54476 NARPO protests the methodology of STB procedures that have been used in the Sea Lion Railroad's(SLR) acquisition of this rairline and also the instant petition for Exemption of abandonment of this rail line. SLR requests to be exempt from the provisions of 49 USC 10902 abandonment proceedings and to be exempt from 49 USC 10904 oPfsrs of financial assistance(OFA). NARPO opposes both of those exemption raquesta for the reasons in the following P phs- SLR and their alter ego,Adventure Trails,Inc.,are paper shell corporations set up by their principals,Cbwles Mommnge and FredWert. Charles Montange leas been associated with many paper shell corporations set up around the country for the express purpose of acqui&S rail Imes so they could be abandoned as soon as p msdble. .An exempla hoing the Sarnmandsh Transportedon Company in the Dakotas which was acquired from BNSF in late 1996 under a Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessary(PCI)and abandoned in Juno 1997. Charles Montange is also can mdy involved with a 12 mile rail line in King County,Weshaington in whish the Land Conservancy of Seattle and King County(TLC)w qW eed the line from BNSF with the express intent to abandon the line ASAP,see FD 33389 and AB-504X, Fred Wert is also involved with these two paper shell corporations. Theist latest schea}e in these acquisitions and abandonments is to convolute the PCN so as to negate any chance a real railroad company will step forth and actually operate a railroad. In the instant acquisition and a AB 544X,they were not able m get all tbcy wanted so they had to settle for an operator(Ballard Terminal Railroad) to be inserted into the picture in order to get the City of Seattle's approval of the scheme. t FEB-27-1999 16:29 P.04 �t C One can guess as to the motives of Charles Moatange,bis associates,and the railroads as to the real reasons for their PCN scheme; l)evade the federal labor haws on railroad=ws after abandonment or sale,2)be able to give huge tax deductions to tbo railroads for land they do not own,3)abWn large"consulting Goes"for themselves,4)extend ftk agenda of the"taking"more private reversionary land for trails. Whatever their reasons and motives, they have been able to thwart long-standing federal laws on railroad acquisitions and abandonmeats;witum the STB decisions and actions in Ala-SO4X and FD 33389. In the AR-504X case,BNSF has already made notice to the STB(see page 12 of BNSF filing"Petition To Reopen"dated October 15, 1997)that they book a S41 million(equals a $15.6 million tax credit)corporate tax donation deduction for the alleged donation of the 12 mile right of way to TLC. The problem bete is that BNSF only owned less than 1,500 of the right of way and this 1,500 feat has a value of approximately$900,000 at most. This possible excess=deduction by BNSF is possible tax fraud on the Unitcd States taxpayers if it proves out in the and. To further the possible tax fraud on the U.S_taxpayers,BNSF reserved all tights to subsurface minerals in the rights of way and reserved all rights to future communication lines in or on the right of way. Not only did BNSF wt own the right of way, but they reserved very valuable rights to the right of way,and they took a$41 million tax deduction to boot.Then there is still another avenue to the tax fraud,the r4lro4ds are pulling when they agree to a rails to trails conversion through the federal trails act 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). The railroads still have a common carrier residual advantage in every line they tailbank because they can get the right of way ba*anytime they went in the firt>um,but they still take a tax deduction for the full value of the rail line. The railroads should be paying the U.S. taxpayers money instead of the other way around.Talk about a. tax fraud on the taxpayers of this country,!!! In the,instant case,A13-544X,BNSF has gotten a$6 million corporate tax deduction from Adventure Trails for the alleged value of the 2.90 mile right of way. The right of way in AB-544X consists of mostly city of Seattle street franchises(which are reversionary),about a mile a federal,g=ted right of way(which is rmrsionary),over one-half mile of condemned land(which is reversionary),and two easement deeds(which are reversionary) which leaves BNSF with less than one-half mile of a 50 foot wide right of way(some of this area has even been sold or leased out by BNSF over the years)that they own in some sort of marketable tittle;hardly worth anything near$6 million. One would think that one would have to own marketable title to property before they could take a tax deduction for the full value.BNSF also reserved mineral and communication rights to this right of way. Another gigantic tax&mud on the taxpayers, The city of Seattle and the STB are all part and parcel to these tax frauds as you both turn your backs to this illegal b uo moons. The STB,by agreeing to the schemes put forth by the various parties to them schemes,puts the STB stamp of approval,not only on the tax bud,-but on the whole scheme of abandoning a line and setting up a PCN which allows the ran wads to possible get huge unwarranted tax deductions from the U.S.taxpayers. There is also the ism of federal railroad labor laws where all the acquiring railroads in these schemes are single line . railroads and Act subject to xe load labor laws. when SL.R and Adventure Trails acquired the line from BNSF in the fall of 1997,they were aware:of the city of Seattle connection and the Ballard Tw ninal Railroad eonnwdon 2 FEB-27-1999 16:29 P.05 to the acquisition scheme,but it was not disclosed to the STO that these players were involved at that time.The city of Seethe aad its legislative council had been involved in the negotiations for keepkag continued rail service to the shippers for mar two years. Also SLR has not disclosed to the STB in this Petition For ExMgdion that 8allerd Terminal Railroad has already contracted out for the repair of the rail line to bring it up to FRA class I standards. I understand the rail line construction and upgrade is all but finished as this comment is being written. NARPO wonders why SLR does not disclose all the details of a ftactsution when they we known to them at the time of their PcWon. SLR asks for the STB to waive the OFA Mutes(49 USC 10904)in this Petition For Exemption. NARPO would oppose any waiver for an OFA. Who is to say that another mare qualified operator than Ballard Terminal Railroad might come along? Why is it necessary to waive long-standing federal statutes when it setves no purpose except to exclude other from joining in the acquisition of the right of way for continued rail operating purposes? dist because one operator has stepped forth and agmed to operate the line should not preclude the STB from allowing others to attempt an acquisition of the line under OFA procedures. k did not know the STB had Congressional power to unilaterally grant monopolistic rights to only a certain few without at least allowing others to apply through the OFA statutes. Charles Montange waxes oa in long vague sentances as to why the OFA waiver should be granted,but offer no substantive reason for the gmaatimg of the waiver. In the first place,the city of Seattle is not going to be the operator,but they will have complete control of the line. Ballard Terminal Railroad is going to be the stated operator. There are other short line operators in the Seattle area and around the country that would Ift to have the existing shipping business and other possible new shippers. Another reason the waiver of the OFA statutes should not be allowed is the ramifications of Iowa TermrrlataR„gWraad Corycm Z L.CC 853 F.2d 965,(D.C.Circuit 19$8). In lbwa Verminal the A.C. Circuit would not glow the value of a donation of the right of way to be part of the tut liquidation value. Consequently,in the instant:comae anybody wanting to acquire the rail line for continued operation under the OFA statutes would only have to pay for the value of the existing rails and ties. In AB-544X tha would amount to about Si O,000 at most due to the condition of the rails and especially the ties. Ballard Terminal Railroad or any prospective operator does not need the city of Seattle as the middleperson in this abandonment, they could acquire the rail line easily under the OFA statutes as the net liquidation value would be very minimal;particularly if BNSF wants the mineral rights. NARPO requests the STS to look into NARPO's allegations concerning the schemes put together by Charles Montange and FYcd Wert to see if anything illegal may have transpired in these transactions,and to possibly not allowing the Petition For Exemption to be issued in AB-544X. NARPO requests the STB to reevaluate its position in itgards to graniiag any waivers to 49 USC 10904,particularly those requested by Charles Montange(SLR)in AB-544X and A13-504X. NARFO also requests the STB to reevaluate these donations of right of way in regards to right of way value in net liquidation value cam before the M. R�ffoc ly yv , Richard Well E utive Director,NARFO 3 FEB-27-1999 16:30 P.06 ;i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 6, 1998, 1 have caused to be acrved a true and coj=a copy of the fowgoing Reply to a Request 'VIA First Class U.S. Maij postage prepaid, cm the folrovYivs: Surface T 'ort Bow Office of the&=tary(10 copies) Case Comol Branch Washington,D.C.20423 Robert Krebs,CEO,BNSF 777 Main Street Sante 3800 Fort Worth TX 76102 _ Ca of Seattle,C/O City Attorney's office JudyNevins IOth Flom.600 Fourth Ave. Seattle WA 98104 Ballard Terminal Raikoad,CIO Steve Day attoc ney 1215 Fourth Ave. Suite 800 Seattle WA 98161 Charles Montange,SLR 426 NW 162nd Street Suttle WA 98177 Fred Allmd,Rail Planning Specialist Washington state DOT P,O. Box 47300 Olympia WA 98504 Senator John McCain Room 241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 Rep. Bud Shuster Room 2188 Rayburn"013 Washington DC 20515 Fred Wert,Advent=Trails P.O.Box 17883 Seattle WA 98107 ticW sh M 7, 1998 ,wdA TOTAL P.06 q2:I Lrz 46t - February 26, 1999 Memo to self RE: BNSF "Roy to Yelm" Phone conversation with Jerry Johnson&Richard Batie at 1:30 PM Mr. Johnson indicated that nothing will happen to jeprodize the current condition of the Yelm to Roy segment of the Prairie line and we can rest assured it will not be scrapped. He also indicated that the Roy to Lakeview segment will remain under the BNSF, and that he did not see any opportunity to transfer to the City of Yelm. Jerry indicates that the best way to get the deal done will be to abandon the line through the STB and than the City can file a Offer of Financial Assistance to purchase-the-1" e at li-quidation value. I indicated to Jerry that we needed the line from Yelm to Lakeview and that the City of Roy as well as our has formed a operation agreement and that economically, it is beneficial for the cities to get to Lakeview. It is imperative to get access to the Lakeview siding as there is good interconnect at that point. Jerry mentione that tra is to Wilcox has been on the decline in the past few years. The Nisqually line is off limits due to the potential of Amtrak service. Jerry said that to put together a deal to include Lakeview would not get done this year in that he would have to take to the Operations Committee and get a feel from their group and resolve potential labor questions prior to any commitment. Jerry indicated the BNSF wished to continue service to fort Lewis over the Roy segment. I indicated that we would be happy to allow the BNSF trackage to service the Fort over our line. Jerry laughed, but said that was something that could be considered. Jerry indicated that the BNSF would not continue to run the Lakeview to Roy segment forever and that at some future time this would become available. I City of Yelm Fax To: Steve Day From: Ken Garmann Fax: 206-343-7053 Pages: 3 Phone: 206-292-9988 Date: 03/23/99 Re: BNSF—letter#3 CC: none ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Steve, Attached is the correct copy of the proposed draft to the BNSF regarding the "Prairie Line" Disregard the"e-mail' version. _ -r-v SCAMSTEA Match Program f SCA/1STEA Match Program Funding ' flv�R 1T In June 1998, the Board designated $1 million dollars from the Small City ccount or Sma City Account/1STEA Match projects. %/ Project Eligibility SCA/ISTEA Match funding is available for Federal FY 1998 TEA-21 projects as well as on- going ISTEA projects. Projects that receive funding from the following programs are generally eligible for SCA/ISTEA Matching funds: b Regional and Statewide Competitive STP program Hazard Elimination Program Enhancement Program Project Submittal After a project receives federal approval, submit the following information to the TO office. . G Copy of the Federal Aid Prospectus (� Copy of the WSID®T funding approval letter or executed ViSQQT Local A ency Agreement C7 8'/2"x 11" map showing the project location You will receive a notification letter after TIB staff reviews the project's eligiblity for SCA/ISTEA Matching funds. zl FY 2000 Small City Account(SCA)Program g_g Z0'd LBP# WdPS:ZT 8661 `Z PION BPEP BSP 09E :01 SONO ON-ld 03H Nuisa 1H1:WONA YELM TO LAKEVIEW BNSF BRANCH LINE ACQUISITION Submitted by: City of Yelm Thurston Regional Planning Council . Year Funded - 1999 YEL99013 - Ip ICKV 4P a � City- of Yelm lOS Yelm Avemie West P.O. Box 479 YELM yelm, Washington 98597 WAgHINQTON (360) 458-3244 September 3, 1998 Thurston Regional Planning Council 2404 Heritage Court SW Suite B- Olympia,WA 98502 RE: Meritorious Grant Application-Yelm to Lakeview Burlington Northern.Santa Fe Branch Line Acquisition The City of Yelm is applying.for$340,000 of grant funding. The grant funds Will.be utilized for the acquisition, maintenance; and operation of.the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) branch line running from ..Lakeview . (Lakewood) to .'Yelm, Washington. The approximately 15-mile long line currently carries freight traffic as fidsouth as Roy. The portion of the line from Roy to Yelm is currently out of service due to a lack of traffic in-recent years. In mid 1997;the City became aware of BNSF's desire to divest itself of the Roy=Yelm segment, either by sale.or abandonment. -A:committee was formed to attempt to preserve rail service-to Yelm and to explore utilization of the rail corridor for additional.uses besides freight rail traffic. The committee has met.regularly,and demonstrated community support to preserve the rail line and to.plan for its'future use. A strong partnership between the.City of Yelm, the Port_of Olympia, the Economic Development Council of Thurston County, the Yelm Chamber.of Commerce,and a number of local businesses is actively discussing acquisition with BNSF. Since the beginning of 1998,the group has commissioned an inspection and condition analysis of the line, met with officials of the BNSF, confirmed the need to..preserve the line, and formed a nucleus'of community members who.are committing both their time.and financial resources to the project. The group has come together to preserve and improve this transportation asset.. The condition of the rail line.is generally good along its entire length with a recommended track speed of 25 MPH. There are currently two major shippers on the line. Fort Lewis ships approximately 1000 cars per year to various destinations from their Logistics Center. Wilcox Farms receives.roughly 500 cars per year at their facility.in Roy: There is good potential for developing additional traffic from industrial users between Roy and Yelm. Pmckd Besides the freight traffic,the line is an excellent candidate for a commuter rail operation from Yelm into Lakeview. Sound Transit has recently selected a-site located immediately adjacent to the junction of the branch line with the BNSF line which will carry commuter rail into Tacoma and on to Seattle. This is an opportunity to tap into an important passenger transportation system for very modest costs.. The acquisition,-maintenance, .and operation costs for a freight rail operation on the line have been estimated and are tabulated below. The costs for maintenance and operations represent anticipated costs for the first year of shortline operation. Acquisition Costs $ 150,000 - ZZ 5 y u Maintenance of Track and Structures 150,000 Operations 100.000 Total Costs $400,000 (pit.Q 44 As an indication of the level of commitment in the community, the City of Yelm has enlisted financial support for the project from a number .of sources to..provide matching funds for the grant, These committed.funds are approximately 15% of the grant request amount and are well in excess of the minimum required by the program. This substantial assistance from the public and'private sectors demonstrates the importance of this rail line to the. communities and businesses which it serves. The matching funds for the grant are being contributed as follows. City of Y61M $ .20,000 .Port of Olympia 20,000 WSDOT-Rail Program 11,500 Private Businesses Miles Sand,&Gravel 2,500 Wilcox Farms 2;500 Prairie.Development 3:500 Total Matching Funds $. .60,000 ' In -closing, this project represents. a unique opportunity to. preserve and enhance a vital transportation link in Thurston County. The continued availability of freight rail service to the Yehn and Roy areas is vital to business-retention and development. It can.provide-a multi-modal freight option. One of the existing::businesses has the potential.for removing 200:truck'trips per day off the road.network. Rail served industrial properties in the.region are at a premium. Many new businesses will not even look it'sites which do not have the capacity to be served-by rail. Beyond the freight rail operations, this line provides`the ability to connect to the commuter rail system being developed by:Sound Transit. This is a unique opportunity to provide passenger_rail -optionsto an area which is experiencing fast-paced growth with its associated traffic congestion. We believe that this project is one which must be undertaken. Thank you for your consideration. If you,have any questions,please contact my office at-360-458-8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm 4 . Ken Public Works Director SHADE GORTON COMMITTEES: WASHINGTON APPROPRIATIONS 730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING BUDGET (202)2243441 www.senate.pov/-gartonCOMMERCE.SCIENCE, nite AND TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON,DC 20510-4701 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES INDIAN AFFAIRS September 18, 1998 The Honorable Kathryn Wolf Mayor of Yelm P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf: I am writing in support of the City of Yelm's project proposal that will further transportation in Thurston County, using TEA-21, Section 1221 funding. It is my understanding the funding will be utilized to assist the City with the purchase, operation and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The railroad project is clearly important to the business community of Yelm by providing the opportunity to preserve and enhance-a vital transportation link in Thurston County for both passenger and freight rail operation. The City of Yelm has already enlisted financial support for the project from a number of sources to provide matching funds for the grant. These other sources include the Port of Olympia, Washington State Department of Transportation's Rail Program and the private.sector. I am pleased to learn that the City of Yelm is taking proactive measures to preserve this section of rail and to further their economic development. I strongly support your grant application and hope it will receive the highest possible consideration. Sincerely, SLADE GORTON United States Senator 10800 N.E.Fomm STREET 11120 GRAVELLY LAxE DRrvE So. 130 FEDERAL BLKDRIG 697 U.S.CouRT HousE Box 4083 8916 W.GRANDRIDGE BLVD. SUITE 12110 SUITE 19 600 WEST 12TH STREET W.920 RNEREIOE AVENUE 402 EAST YAKRAA AvENUE Sum M BEIuvm WA 98004 TACOMA,WA 96499 VANcouwn.WA 98660 SIDKANE.WA 99201 YARRAA,WA 88901 KENNEv wj4 WA 99336-2125 44261451-0103 (2531581-1916 43601696-7838 (6091363-2607 16091248-8081 (6091783-0610 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER SLADE GORTON COMMITTEES: WASHINGTON APPROPRIATIONS 730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING BUDGET (202)224-3441 www.9enete.gov!-gorton United �btatc*sp senateANDCOMMERCE,SCIENCE, TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON,DC 20510-4701 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES INDIAN AFFAIRS September 18, 1998 The Honorable Kathryn Wolf Mayor of Yelm P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf. I am writing in support of the City of Yelm's application for$340,000 of funding through the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council. It is my understanding the grant funds will be utilized to assist the City with the purchase, operation and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The railroad project is clearly important to the business community of Yelm by providing the opportunity to preserve and enhance a vital transportation link in Thurston County for both passenger and freight rail operation. The City of Yelm has already enlisted financial support for the project from a number of sources to provide matching funds for the grant. These other sources include the Port of Olympia, Washington State Department of Transportation's Rail Program and the private sector. I am pleased to learn that the City of Yelm is taking proactive measures to preserve this section of rail and to further their economic development. I strongly support your grant application and hope it will receive the highest possible consideration. Sincerely, SLADE GORTON United States Senator 10900 N.E.FoumTN STREET 11120 GRAvELLV LAKE O"m SO. 130 FEDERAL Buuo1NG 697 U.S.COURT HOUSEBoz 4003 8915 W.GRMDRIDGE BLVD. SURE 12110 Surt 98 500 WEST 12TH STREET W.920 RtvmsroE AVENuE 402 EAST YAKRAA AVENUE SUITE M BEULINE.WA 98004 TAcOVA,WA 98499 VANCOWER.WA 98660 SPOKANE,WA 99201 Y"mm WA 98901 KENNEYAM WA 99336-2125 44251451-0103 (2S31581-1646 (360)696-7838 (509)353-2507 (5091248-0084 (6091783'0640 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER •ADAM SMITH 1505 LONGWORTH BUILDING ` 9TH DISTRICT,WASHINGTON WASHINGTON,DC 20515 (202)225901 COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY DISTRICT OFFICE: MILITARBY�PRREMENT �Congrezz of q e Rutteb btate� 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD E.,SUITE 308 MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES TACOMA,WA 98424(253)926-6683 8424 MERCHANT MARINE PANELIya ouze of �Rerezetttatibeg TOLL(253)82s ssB3 FREE 1-888-SMITH09 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES e-mail:adam.smith@mail.house.gov SUBCOMMITTEE: Wabington, OC 20515-4709 WATER AND POWER August 25, 1998 Kathryn Wolf Mayor City of Yelm PO Box 479 Yelm,WA 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf, I am writing to express my strong support of your application for the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist with the purchase of the Roy/Yelm Shortline Railroad. Having worked with you and representatives from throughout the region, I am excited about the prospect of a community pulling together to preserve an incredibly vital link for the Yelm region. This is a key rail link, and losing this segment of track would effectively isolate the South Puget Sound region from'rail traffic through Roy and Yelm. This segment must be preserved for the economic and industrial future of both communities. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my support for this important project` A el ,Smith . Member of Congress as/hpc PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I --' - COMMIr[EES: PATTY MURRAY AFFROPRIATION5 WASHINGTON BUDGET LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES united �6tattz cna� SCLCCT TERANCOMMAFFAIM-ONR 7HIG`..�EIL�L Il VETERANS'AFFAIRS WASHINGTON,DC 205104704 September 1, 1998 The Honorable Yathryn Wolf City of Yelm PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf: I am pleased to learn that the City of Yelm is applying for funding to assist with the purchase, operation and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The city's acquisition of the shortline would resurrect an important transportation corridor and could potentially expedite movement of both freight and passengers. The benefits would be both local and regional. I am confident that the Thurston Regional Planning Council will give your proposal serious consideration. . Sincerely, �XCMurray . United States Senator PM/mo 7910 WYYMORE AVENUE 2988 JnQUQN FLOGw.Sulu7lNu W.601 1ST AVENUE 140 FEDERAL DUILDING d02 t.YAQNIA AVENUE Sal ypxwnx 900 600 W.12TH STREETSum 290 SUITE 907 975 2ND AVENUE S ^, EvERE�*.WA 9lQDt a107 SEATTLE,WA 08.174-1003 SrorAmk WA 99201-3917 ViLNrmwrt,WA 290604971 VnxlWA 98901-27BD 142b1 7-A-6616 (206►553-5545 IWO)024-M5 13h9)65d-7797 (509)457-7452 rPoNTED ON RECYCLED PAPER lawnot 1enAW_MUrrEv0fflWMy-WWv4-Q N 1P01��441M0.'IIfIP:�1NWfW.90fIQT0.gOV/MIUfTiy/ . bR: Washington State Senate PO Box 40482 Senator Karen Fraser (360)786-7642 Olympia,WA 98504-0482 22nd Legislative District PAX: (360)786-7450 August 27, 1998 Kathy M. Wolf,Mayor City of Yelm P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Kathy: I understand you are seeking a meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to help with the purchase,operation and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline section of rail currently owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Please count me among those who support this worthwhile project. I am grateful that the City of Yelm is taking a leadership role to preserve this section of rail. If I can be of assistance on.this project in the future,please let me know. KAREN FRASER State Senator 221 Legislative District Committees: Agriculture&Environment • Commerce&Labor • Ways&Means, Ranking Democrat-Capital Budget joint Committee on Pension Policy • joint Administrative Rules Review Committee .IoRecycled CR L Olympia Office: Residence: 412-B Legislative Building waShington State Senate 33419 Mountain Hwy E PO Box 40482 Eatonville,WA 98328 Olympia,WA 98504-0482 (253)'847-3276 (360)786-7602 Senator Marilyn Rasmussen Toll-Free: 1-800-562-6000 y Cellular Phone: (206)370-3880 e-mail:rasmusse_maoleg.wa.gov 2nd Legislative District e-mail:senrasmussen@msn.com August 24, 1998 KATHRYN M.-WOLF-1 MAYOR CITY OF YELM PO BOX 479 YELM, WA 98597 Re: Roy/Yelm Shortline Railroad Dear Mayor Wolf: Earlier this year a letter in support of the preservation of the Shortline was written to Burlington Northern. I am happy to support the City of Yelm in applying for the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist in the purchase, operation, and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline.from the Burlington Northern. Santa Fe Railroad. This is a very important project. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Sincerely, A LY SMUSS N Sta a for 2"� L slative District Standing Committees: Agriculture&Environment,Ranking Minority Member Education Transportation Special Committees: Jt. Select Committee Education Restructuring • Jt. Select Committee on Lake Health Legislative Transportation Committee 4 Rocked ®ate State of Washington _ STATE REPRESENTATIVE uvvcRNMFNT REFORM&LAND USE 22nd DISTRICT HOuse Of RANKING MINORITY MEMBER SANDRA ROMERO Representatives TRANSPORTATION POLICY&BUDGET Rai RTA rF o� RULES .a =c = ay y ' 1889 w0 .August 21, 1998 Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor City of Yelm PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf: I am pleased to write that I support the City of Yelm in its application.for a meritorious grant- from the Thurston Regional Planning Council. The grant would assist the City of Yelm in . the purchase, operation and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. If there is any other help I can give in this effort, please let me know. I'll be glad to do what I can. Sincerely, ra Romero Representative 22nd District LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 415 LEGISLATIVE BUILDING.PO BOX 40600,OLYMPIA.WA 985040600 (:WIO)WWr7940 HOTLINE DURING SESSION: 1-800-562-6000 • TDD: 1-800.6354993 FrMAIL: anderson_ma@4eg.wa.gov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER � i nomic Development Councik ;_hurston County 721 Columbia SW Olympia, WA 98501 (360) 754-6320 FAX(360)586-5493 hftp://www.orcalink,com/-edc edcgorcalink.com August 24, 1998 The Honorable Kathryn M. Wolf Mayor City of Yelm Post Office Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf: I am writing in regards to the preservation of the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe railline located in Yelm. Across the northwest, land with rail access for cost-effective product delivery is becoming scarce which is reflective of the increasing number of companies contacting our organization interested in industrial or light manufacturing land with rail access. For a town such as Yelm that does not have direct access to Interstate 5, the option of shipping by rail is extremely important to their economic vitality. Companies that locate in Yelm that cannot ship commerce by rail will congest Yelm Highway with large trucks. We support the City of Yelm in applying for the*meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist with the purchase, operation and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline from the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Thank you for the opportunity to show our support in this matter. Sincer Dennis Matson Executive Director 0 Port of o lym p i d Commissioners c Jeff Dickison r Steven Pottle Bob Van Schoorl August 28, 1998 Kathryn M. Wolf Mayor, City of Yelm. PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mayor Wolf: The Port of Olympia's mission is to promote economic development throughout all of Thurston County. In this regard,we write to support the City of Yelm in applying for the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist with the purchase,operation and maintenance of the Roy to Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The Yelm community has been working actively to promote economic development in that community. The Yelm Industrial Park has been designated for this purpose. Currently,the Roy to Yelm Shortline runs through the center of the industrial park. Because Yelm is located away from the I-4 corridor,maintaining a rail link to the industrial park is critical to the future economic development in this area. We urge the Thurston Regional Planning Council to approve the grant request in order for the City of Yelm to maintain the economic development and growth in the area. Sinc ely Nick Handy Executive Director 91S Washington Street NE.Olympia,WA 98501-6931 Tel(360)586-6150 Fax(360)586-4653 inquiries@portolympia.com I Executive Director,Nick Handy I �Cea Chamber or C'o,���' f r,o-Bux 444 • Yelm; Washington 98597 • (360) 458-6605 September 2, 1998 Thurston Regional Planning Council Board of Directors Olympia,WA Subject: Meritorious Grant Application D ear.Council.Members: T support the City of Yelm in applying for the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist with the purchase, operation and maintenance.of the Roy—Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The railroad project is-important to the business community of Yelm. The Chamber of Commerce's board of directors and membership have expressed a strong interest in . supporting the project. Thank you for your time and consideration, Your support would be greatly appreciated by the Yelm Chamber of Commerce. Sincerely, #rCcxcJenkins Executive Director YELM PRAmmm DEwLoPMENT CompANY.. August 2,.1998 •RE:Yeitn to•LakeAevr Shorgine Railroad-'$400,000.GMnt from Thurston Re' innal. 'Planning Council : This Woe.is•to ponfinri today's phohe•convermation, Our minimum commitment to the . -matching fund portion of the pmot.will'be '6,000, which at present is to include'Miles 'Sand and 0' v_@ poition, ::As•other.businesses•.commit.to the••project•and after.•we've had•an-opportun'sty to discuss the matter with Miies:and-Vllilcox this amount'may be revised. It is- our:undeMte4M6 iiat;the goal:is.,$20,000 (qdh to $.11,504 coming from DOT): This $20•,040 rriatches $re City of Yelm's20;04a plecigo and,the'Port of Olympia's $20;000 pledge.: The totalp'(edges•of$60,000 woWd exceed.the•1.3,5% . required for the.m$tch g funds portion of the;grarit Advise if you require'anything else. Joseph,S::W lU010• '_"' 701 PrO4 Park Lane LVE 'PD-Box 5$10 •Ye]izc,Washington 98597 " . Pho�ie 360A58, B01. Tax•360ASS 5501 y � A Washington State Transportation Building Department of Transportation Olympia,.BoWA 98504-7300 Sid Momison Secretary of Transportation September 3, 1998. The Honorable Kathryn M.Wolf Mayor of Yelm PO Box 479 Yehn WA 98597-0479 RE: Roy to Yelm Shordine Railroad Dear Mayor Wolf: The Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT) supports the City of Yelm in applying for the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist with the purchase,operation,and maintenance of the Roy-Yelm Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad- Th.e WSDOT believes this project has excellent potential for providing mobility options to residents and businesses in the rapidly urbanizing Roy and Yelm areas. This rail line not only has potential to convert a portion of the heavy truck tra£fitc moving over local roads to rail shipments,but there is also potential for a future commuter train oonuection from'Y'elm,Roy,and Ft.Lewis to the RTA commuter train station planned for Lakewood. At a time when the roads in the Yebu and Roy area are becoming increasingly congested, the W SDOT believes pireservmg this valuable urban rail corridor is a sound investment for providing future mobility options. Consequently,the WSDOT will contribute up to $11,500 for the TEA-21 local matching requirement for this project. Sincerely, AMES H. SLAKEY 'Director Public Transportation&Rail Division JHS:cls i Washington State- Transportation Building Department of 'Transportation P.O.Box 47300 Sid MoMson Olympia,WA 98504-73M Secretary df Transportation September 3, 1998. The Honorable Kathryn M.Wolf Mayor of Yehn PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597-0479 RE: Roy to Yelxm Shortline Railroad Dear Mayor Wolf: The Washington State Department of Ttansportation(WSDOT)supports the City of Yalm in applying for the meritorious grant from the Thurston Regional Planning Council to assist with the purchase,operation,and maintenance of the Roy Yehn Shortline from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The WSDOT believes this project has excellent potential for providing mobility options to residents and businesses in the rapidly urbanizing Roy and Yehn areas. This rail line not only has potential to convert a portion of the heavy truck traffic moving over local roads to rail shipments,but there is also potential for a future commuter tt'ain connection from Yehn,Roy,and Ft.Lewis to the RTA commuter train station planned for Lakewood. At a time when the roads.in the Yc)m and Roy area are becoming increasingly congested, the WSDOT believes preserving this valuable urban rail corridor is a sound investment for providing future mobility options. Consequently,the WSDOT WM contribute up to $11,500 for the TEA-21 local matching requirement for this project. Sincerely, AMES H. SLAKEY Director Public Transportation&Rail Division JHS:cls ce i . of a r+ 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELM WASHINGTON Ye1m,.Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 March 26, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line"—Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for your efforts organizing our conference call with Mr. Johnson on February 26'' of this year. I felt the dialogue was encouraging as we continue to structure the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview shortline package. As I understood our conversation, the BNSF would like to file with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) for abandonment of the segment from Yelm to Roy. Under this scenario you suggest that the two cities as the "Prairie Line" could then file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) and purchase the line at"net liquidation value" (NLV). Since our conversation I have taken the opportunity to research the abandonment process and find that an abandonment would be a costly, risky and.time-consuming process which ultimately would not be in the best interest of the City of Yelm, City of Roy or the "Prairie Line". Additionally, because we intend to continue service and actively attract new business on the"Prairie Line" an abandonment process would be an inappropriate transfer process. As I indicated during our conference call, shortline viability for the"Prairie Line" will require an interchange at Lakeview. The Cities of Yelm and Roy have (by Ordinance) created a rail operating agreement, and our short term and long-range planning and marketing efforts are contingent on having a connection at Lakeview. Based on recent findings, the City of Yelm "Prairie Line" will cover its operating costs with approximately 353 cars per mile/year consisting of local traffic, and 35 cars per mile/year through the Lakeview interchange. Future interchange traffic will be expected 1 r� to grow once the short line is in place. As you know, we plan to engage a shortline operator with proven operational and marketing experience, and these numbers may be on the conservative side, as a result. To expedite our discussions on the matter of a Yelm to Lakeview"Prairie Line" shortline, the City of Yelm proposes the following: 1. Combine all the BSNF assets including right of way, physical improvements, real estate, etc. of the Yelm, Roy, Lakeview segment of the"Prairie Line" into a short- line package. 2. Directly transfer the BNSF assets of the"Prairie Line" to the operating partnership established by ordinance between the Cities of Yelm and Roy. 3. Value the transferred assets at fair market value as a"going concern railroad" for donation purposes. The BNSF could then treat the transferred assets to the Cities as a donation in order to take advantage of a tax deduction, as has been done in other recent governmental transfers. 4. Include BNSF unit train operating rights to Ft. Lewis on a wheelage basis. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit rail users, increase cost-free traffic to BNSF, and meet our"Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. Feel free to call my office if you have any questions. I can be reached at (360)458- 8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Keri Garma Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO 99-bnsf5b 2 Title FirstNa)pg.___-LastN,ame Addressl Address2 city State PostalCode alade. Gof t 6 nif 730 Hart Senate Washington D.C. 20510-4701 Building 1-0900--NE 4th----' Stre6t,,,Suite WA - -98004.- 21-10 1.0 . /Congressman Adam—, _J505 Longworth.__ =,,.,-Washington-- ---D.C. 20515 Building, ? Attn'-Holly - -Clifsa- 9"District -36 00'PortAJ, Washington, Tacoma '_k(&ad--E., Suite Tacoma WA 98424 Director James H. Slakey Transportation PO Box 47300 Olympia WA 98504-7300 Building Executive Cecelia Jenkins Yelm Chamber PO Box Yelm WA 98597 Director of Commerce 444 John Thompson 701 Prairie Park PO Box 5210 Yelm WA 98597 Lane NE Senator Patty Murray 2088 Jackson 915 2nd Avenue Seattle WA 98174-1003 Federal Building Executive Nick Handy 915 Washington Olympia WA 98501-6931 Director Street NE Senator Karen Fraser 22nd Legislative PO Box 40482 Olympia WA 98504 District Executive Dennis Matson Economic 721 Columbia Olympia WA 98501 Director Development Street SW Council Title FirstName LastName Addressl Address2 City State PostalCode Senator Marilyn Rasmussen 412 B PO Box 40482 Olympia WA 98504-0482 Legislative Building Representative Sandra Romero 415 Legislative PO Box 40600 Olympia WA 98504-0600 Building Thurston Judy Wilson Building 1 2000 Lakeridge Olympia WA 98502 County Drive SW Commissioner Thurston Diane Oberquell Building 1 2000 Lakeridge Olympia WA 98502 County Drive SW Commissioner ✓` old_ _.Robertson _Tliursfon.; 2404-Heritage-Ct.. --Olympia_ :---WA-_ _, -98. 502' Regional', -SW 4B Planning s - Representative Cathy Wolfe 22nd Legislative District 1fS00y_- ----- - Mackie, , Owens,-, `:PO�Box 187 -Olympia- - -WA- ---98507:.- tEsgc'"- Davies-&`' ``.1Vlackie_'�Z etts,Tatt_erson -,Steve.. _ _ Day__ - ; - 1215TFourth. C''800 Financial: = Title FirstNarne LastName Addressl Address2 city State PostalCode Gravel Wilcox -Barry Wilcox 40400 Harts. WA 98580 LakeValley Rd. elm-Prairie, John Thompson 701-?fairip,.Park - ---PO-Box 5210 LY m 98597- 11&y,eIopmd-nt— Lane NE - YeIrn Area --- ----- --Williarns PO Box 444 Yelm WA 98597 Chamber of Commerce Representative Cathy Wolfe 22nd Legislative 320 O'Brien Olympia WA 98502 District Building Mayor Joel _._-,---- --Derefield- PO-Box 700 Roy- - WA--- 98590.- Y-Touncilman .---Glenn-------'- Cunningham put in box out front L "The Prairie Line" Acknowledgement of Project Support Yelm to Lakeview / BNSF ES'3ade-=Gore°on United :States Senate ,51rNV -M .f:,enN :.Patty Murray United States Senate Adam�Smzth - United..States .House..of Representatives - .Marilyn Rasmussen State Senator 2nd Legislative .District gx Ca en. AFras.er .. ...,.Stat,e..,,.S.enator 22nd Legislative District Cato atWolfe , <State Representative' 22nd` District *Sandra: Romero State Representative--•22nd -Di strict Dick Nichols Thurston ,County Commissioner -Judy Wilson Thurston -County Commissioner .Diane Oberquill Thurston""County Commissioner Kathryn .N! wolf; Mayor; ; City.. of Yelm" _WWoA&1 -Derefie1d Mayor, City of Roy Dennis-Matson-.. EDC. of Thu�s,tok_;,-,ounty tkick-<;Handy Por-t._of Olympia Haro-ld,;,Robertson Thurston Regional. Planning Council 4kCecelia Jenkins Executive Director, Yelm Chamber of Commerce James` H:`'Slakey Director, WSDOT-Rail am, 0 4--B l _ 98bnsf"0 BLIND CC: IS Sandy Mackie Owens,Davies,Mackie Steve Day Betts .Patterson & Mines Charlie Burnham David Evans & Associates Oy' Allred Dot-Rail Lisa Kittelsby Miles Sand & Gravel Barry Wilcox Wilcox Farms -5 3Foe .Williams- 1John Thompson : Prairie Development h' Gael Ci-r-j CCTV Cc,L A •v Rail Committee Meeting March 30, 1999 2:00—3:00 PM Yelm Prairie Hotel Conference Room AGENINA Where we've been—Joe Williams ,R.' Where we are. —Ken Garmann )"Actions taken to date -Ken .Future direction of negotiations—Ken, Charlie, Steve and recieved and dispersed en III. Where we're going—.All, round table discussion '��'�'C- a.) Political pressure?—All G " b.) Political contributions? - Joe apt / "-�-' RAC—April meeting—Mayor Wolf JO P_ �� G G LE 03 a.) Members—Mayor Wolf,Mayor Derefield L b.) By-laws—Joe Williams V. Conclusions and Wrap-up �"' March 30, 1999 Burlington Northern Railroad Analysis Cost Breakdown *Billed to date by David Evans: $10,072.20 *Received to date by David Evans: $10,260.30 *Credit as shown by David Evans: $(188.10) **Billed to date as shown by COY.- $10,072.50 **Billed out by City of Yelm:$10,411.11 ** Collected by City of Yelm:$8,660.86 **Additional cost incurred by City of Yelm: $1,750.25 ***Overpayment of invoice date 9110198 in amount of$514.80-- bill no's 7,8,9 have been applied. We have been credited this amount and have a remaining credit of$(188.10) The billing breakdown for the railroad analysis has been as follows: Port of Olympia Percentage Billed Received 33.3% Bill No. 1 2,207.70 735.90 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 2 1,381.50 357.93 ✓ 25.0 % Bill No. 3 1,683.01 420.75 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 4 514.80 128.70 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 5 2,119.40 529.85 25.0% Bill No. 6 2,504.70 626.17 25.0% Bill No. 7 49.50 N/A 25.0% Bill No. 8 79.20 N/A 25.0% Bill No. 9 198.00 N/A TOTAL 10,737.81 2799.30 1643.28 Yelm Prairie Development Billed Received 33.3% Bill No. 1 2,207.70 735.90 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 2 1,381.50 357.93 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 3 1,683.01 420.75 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 4 514.80 128.70 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 5 2,119.40 529.85 25.0% Bill No. 6 2,504.70 626.17 ✓ 25.0% Bill No. 7 49.50 N/A 25.0% Bill No. 8 79.20 N/A 25.0% Bill No. 9 198.00 N/A TOTAL 10,737.81 2,799.30 2,269.45 „ LS / Page 1 of 3 From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To: Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 6:24 PM Here are some ideas - not fully researched though. TITLE 81. TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 81.36. RAILROADS--CORPORATE POWERS AND DUTIES Current through End of 1998 Reg. Sess. 81.36.010. Right of eminent domain Every corporation organized for the construction of any railway, macadamized road, plank road, clay road, canal or bridge, is hereby authorized and empowered to appropriate, by condemnation, land and any interest in land or contract right relating thereto, including any leasehold interest therein and any rights-of-way for tunnels beneath the surface of the land, and any elevated rights-of-way above the surface thereof, including lands granted to the state for university, school or other purposes, and also tide and shore lands belonging to the state (but not including harbor areas), which may be necessary for the line of such road, railway or canal, or site of such bridge, not exceeding two hundred feet in width, besides a sufficient quantity thereof for toll houses, workshops, materials for construction, excavations and embankments and a right-of-way over adjacent lands or property, to enable such corporation to construct and prepare its road, railway, canal or bridge, and to make proper drains; and in case of a canal, whenever the court shall deem it necessary, to appropriate a sufficient quantity of land, including lands granted to the state for university, school or other purposes, in addition to that before specified in this section, for the construction and excavation of such canal and of the slopes and bermes thereof, not exceeding one thousand feet in total width; and in case of a railway to appropriate a sufficient quantity of any such land, including lands granted to the state for university, schools and other purposes and also tide and shore lands belonging to the state (but not including harbor areas) in addition to that before specified in this section, for the necessary side tracks, depots and water stations, and the right to conduct water thereto by aqueduct, and for yards, terminal, transfer and switching grounds, docks and warehouses required for receiving, delivering, storage and handling of freight, and such land, or any interest therein, as may be necessary for the security and safety of the public in the construction, maintenance and operation of its railways; compensation therefor to be made to the owner thereof irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, in the manner provided by law. ANDPROVIDED FURTHER, That if such corporation locate the bed of such railway or canal upon any part of the track now occupied by any established state or county road, said corporation shall be responsible to the state or county in which such state or county road so appropriated is located, for all expenses incurred by the state or county in relocating and opening the 3/15/99 Page 2 of 3 part of such road so appropriated. The term land as herein used includes tide and shore lands but not harbor areas; it also includes any interest in land or contract right relating thereto, including any leasehold interest therein. CHAPTER 8.20. EMINENT DOMAIN BY CORPORATIONS 8.20.010. Petition for appropriation--Contents Any corporation authorized by law to appropriate land, real estate, premises or other property for right-of-way or any other corporate purposes, may present to the superior court of the county in which any land, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated shall be situated, or to the judge of such superior court in any county where he has jurisdiction or is holding court, a petition in which the land, real estate, premises or other property sought to be appropriated shall be described with reasonable certainty, and setting forth the name of each and every owner, encumbrancer or other person or party interested in the same, or any part thereof, so far as the same can be ascertained from the public records, the object for which the land is sought to be,appropriated, and praying that a jury be impaneled to ascertain and determine the compensation to be made in money, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, to such owner or owners, respectively, and to all tenants, encumbrancers and others interested, for the taking or injuriously affecting such lands, real estate, premises or other property, or in case a jury be waived as in other civil cases in courts of record in the manner prescribed by law, then that the compensation to be made, as aforesaid, be ascertained and determined by the court, or judge thereof. CHAPTER 81.53. RAILROADS--CROSSINGS 81.53.180. Eminent domain Whenever to carry out any work undertaken under this chapter it is necessary to take, damage, or injuriously affect any private lands, property, or property rights, the right so to take, damage, or injuriously affect the same may be acquired by condemnation as hereinafter provided: (1) In cases where new railroads are constructed and laid out by railroad company authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain, the right to take, damage, or injuriously affect private lands, property, or property rights shall be acquired by the railroad company by a condemnation proceedings brought in its own name and prosecuted as provided by law for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by railroad companies, and the right of eminent domain is hereby conferred on railroad companies for the purpose of carrying out the requirements of this chapter or the requirements of any order of the commission. (2) In cases where it is necessary to take, damage, or injuriously affect private lands, property, or property rights to permit the opening of a new highway or highway crossing across a railroad, the right to take, damage, or injuriously affect such lands, property, or property rights shall be 3/15/99 Page 3 of 3 acquired by the municipality or county petitioning for such new crossing by a condemnation proceeding brought in the name of such municipality or county as provided by law for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by such municipality or county. If the highway involved be a state highway, then the right to take, damage, or injuriously affect private lands, property, or property rights shall be acquired by a condemnation proceeding prosecuted under the laws relative to the exercise of the power of eminent domain in aid of such state road. (3) In cases where the commission orders changes in existing crossings to secure an under-crossing, over-crossing, or safer grade crossing, and it is necessary to take, damage, or injuriously affect private lands, property, or property rights to execute the work, the right to take, damage, or injuriously affect such lands, property, or property rights shall be acquired in a condemnation proceeding prosecuted in the name of the state of Washington by the attorney general under the laws relating to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by cities of the first class for street and highway purposes: PROVIDED, That in the cases mentioned in this subdivision the full value of any lands taken shall be awarded, together with damages, if any accruing to the remainder of the land not taken by reason of the severance of the part taken, but in computing the damages to the remainder, if any, the jury shall offset against such damages, if any, the special benefits, if any, accruing to such remainder by reason of the proposed improvement. The right of eminent domain for the purposes mentioned in this subdivision is hereby granted. 3/15/99 Page 1 of 3 From: Steve <sday@bpmlaw.com> To:. Ken Garmann <garmann@yelmtel.com> Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:56 PM Subject: Abandonment procedure Ken, this is a typical abandonment procedure. You will notice the solicitation for OFAs. I really hope you can convince BNSF that this is the wrong way to go. I think they are open to a shortline, if they think it is viable. Otherwise, from their point of view, it's better to terminate common carrier obligation and be done with it. That way the property doesn't come back to haunt them. 30065 SERVICE DATE - MARCH 11, 1999 DO F R-4915-00-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-437 (Sub-No. 1)] Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C.--Abandonment--In Sumner, Harper, Barber, Reno and Kingman Counties, KS On February 19, 1999, the Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C. (KSW) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) an application to abandon: (1) a line of railroad known as the Hardtner,,Branch, extending from milepost 514, at Conway Springs, to milepost 571.85, at Kiowa; and (2) a portion of a line of railroad known as the Stafford Branch, extending from milepost 559.028, at Conway Springs, to milepost 610.0, at Olcott, at total distance of 108.8 miles, in Sumner, Harper, Barber, Reno, and Kingman Counties, KS. The line includes no stations and traverses U.S. Postal Service ZIP Codes 67031, 67106, 67118, 67014, 67622, 67068, 67121, 67004, 67049, 67003, 67061, and 67070. The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in the KSW's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The applicant's entire case for abandonment (case-in-chief) was filed with the application. This line of railroad has appeared on the applicant's system diagram map or has been included in its narrative in category 1 since August 20, 1998. 3/11/99 Page 2 of 3 The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). Any interested person may file with the Board written comments concerning the proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire opposition case) by April 5, 1999. All interested persons should be aware that, following any abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905 (49 CFR 1152.28) or for a trail use condition under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be filed by April 5, 1999. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). Applicant's reply to any opposition statements and its response to trail use requests must be filed by April 20, 1999. See 49 CFR 1152.26(a). Persons opposing the proposed abandonment that wish to participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest. Persons who may oppose the abandonment but who do not wish to participate fully in the process by appearing at any oral hearings or by submitting verified statements of witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Persons seeking information concerning the filing of protests should refer to 49 CFR 1152.25. Persons interested only in seeking public use or trail use conditions should also file comments. In addition, a commenting party or protestant may provide: (i) An offer of financial assis ance®A for continued rail service under 49 U S.C. 10904 (due 120 days after the application is filed or 10 days after the application is granted by the Board, whichever occurs sooner); (ii) Recommended provisions for protection of the interests of employees; .(iii).A request for a public use condition under 49 U.S.C. 10905; and (iv) A statement pertaining to prospective use of the right-of-way for interim trail use and rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 49 CFR 1152.29. All filings in response to this notice must indicate the proceeding designation STB Docket No..AB-437 (Sub-_N and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005. The original and 10 copies of all comments or protests shall be filed with the Board with a certificate of service. Except as otherwise set forth in part 1152, every document filed with the Board must be served on all parties to the abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1104.12(a). The lines sought to be abandoned will be available for subsidy or sale fo_r continued rail use, if the Board decides to permit the abandonment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. 10904 and 49 CFR 1152.27). Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). No subsidy arrangement approved under 49 U.S.C. 10904 shall remain in effect for more than 1 year unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties (49 U.S.C. 10904(f)(4)(B)). Applicant will promptly provide upon request to each interested party an estimate of the subsidy and minimum purchase price required to keep the line in operation. The carrier's 3/11/99 Page 3 of 3 , representative to whom inquiries may be made concerning sale or subsidy terms is set forth above. Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental. Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available at (202) 565-1695.] An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS.). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 33 days of the filing of the application. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. The comments received will be addressed in the Board's decision. A supplemental EA or EIS may be issued where appropriate. Board decisions and notices are available on our website at "WWW.STB.DOT.GOV." Decided: March 3, 1999. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams Secretary 3/11/99 Law Offices _ BETTS PATTERS®N &.MINES, P s. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Stephen L. Day Phone: 206-292-9988 eMail: sday@bpmlaw.com February 10, 1999 Mr. Ken Garmann Director of Public Works City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm,WA 98597 Re: The Purchase of BNSF Branch Dear Ken: Enclosed for your review is our invoice for costs and services rendered in the above-referenced matter. If it is satisfactory, we ask that you kindly place the invoice for payment in the ordinary course. Th ou f r allowing Betts,Patterson&Mines to represent the City of Yelm in this matter. S' ely, Stephen L. Da SLD:tic Enclosure a �r City of Yelm a r+ 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P.O. Box 479 WA13MINGTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 February 2, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for returning my phone call January 7th of this year, regarding the BNSF "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview. As I understand our conversation regarding our letter to Mr. Jerry Johnson, the BNSF is not interested in conveying the"Prairie Line" to the City of Yelm, at this time. Specifically as outlined in our letter: • The BNSF will not grant a"first right of refusal" for the right of way improvements or traffic on the"Nisqually Line" as this may become part of the Amtrak route south of Tacoma. • The BNSF will not grant interchange rights at the Tacoma Yard due to the potential of conflicts with existing labor agreements. • The BNSF will not grant, nor create any short line operations between Roy and Lakeview including Ft. Lewis traffic, Roy traffic nor Wilcox traffic at this time. Additionally, the BNSF will not allow any interchange at Roy from the Yelm to Roy segment. • The BNSF will consider the transfer of the Yelm to Roy segment to the City in the'near future. Naturally, we are disappointed that the BNSF is not more receptive to our proposal. The community involvement and efforts put forth to develop and fund our plan have been 1 enormous, and the sense of community pride in this project has had significant local and regional support as well. We are also disappointed that we did not receive a reply from Mr. Johnson, as at our June 26'h meeting he seemed receptive to the idea of developing a"short line" from Yelm to Lakeview. It was this seed that encouraged the Cities of Yelm and Roy, the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in both communities to expend substantial time and energy pursuing this idea. Based on this encouragement from Mr. Johnson we have all carefully developed what we view as a practical a meaningful multi-community consensus on strategies to both preserve current rail use and expand future service over the"Prairie Line". In fact, as we stated in our original letter, it is our strong,desire to dramatically increase the traffic on this line, allowing the BNSF to enjoy additional revenues without increased cost. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit local rail users and meet our "Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. We request the BNSF reconsider its position on the development of the"Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview as a short line and work with the City of Yelm to realize this goal. It should be apparent that Mr. Johnson's initial encouragement created broad community support and positive hope for BNSF's partnership in fostering our,community's economic growth. It would be most unfortunate to see all this positive community effort come to an untimely and unfortunate conclusion. Perhaps it would be beneficial for a representative of the BNSF to meet with our group to discuss these issues and explore avenues available to make the Prairie Line a reality for the City of Yelm. We await your favorable reply. Please direct your correspondence to my attention. If you have any questions, feel free to call my office at(360)458-8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm I Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO Jerry Johnson, BNSF 2 Law Offices )Lr-7 BETTS rj�'-r PATTERSON &MINES, Ps. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Stephen L. Day Phone: 206-292-9988 eMail: sday@bpmlaw.com March 10, 1999 Mr. Ken Garmann Director of Public Works City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm,WA 98597 Re: Purchase of BNSF Branch Dear Ken: Enclosed for your review is our invoice for costs and services rendered in the above-referenced matter. If it is satisfactory, we ask that you kindly place the invoice for payment in the ordinary course. Thank you for allowing Betts,Patterson&Mines to represent the City of Yelm in this matter. S ely, Stephen L. ay SLD:cpb Enclosure ADAM SMITH 1505 LONGWORTH BUILDING 9TH DISTRICT,WASHINGTON WASHINGTON,DC 20515 (202)225-8901 COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY }�SUBCOMMITTEES: rp [� a }y A ®[j' DISTRICT OFFICE: MILITARY PROCUREMENT Conn ea Of the U iteb *tate!5 . 3600 PORT OACOMA,WA 98D 4.,SUITE 308 MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES MERCHANT MARINE PANEL IT"Wage of � TOLL FREE REE 9 1-88888-S3 epregentatibeg ( ' MITH09 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES ,y e-mail:adam.smith@mail.house.gov M SUBCOM[TTEE: Wnbingtan, -�DC 20515-4709 WATER AND POWER March 7, 1999 Mr. Kenneth L. Garmann Public Works Director City of Yelm PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Mr. Garmann, As one of Congressman Adam Smith's newest staff members in his district office, I wanted to take a brief moment of your time to introduce myself. Adam has asked that I serve as a local resource for constituents with questions, ideas, or concerns related to transportation issues. If there is any way that I can be of assistance in this area, please do not hesitate to call me. It is also our hope that we could rely upon your knowledge and expertise to learn more about the District and the concerns of Adam's constituents. As you know, transportation throughout western Washington is a complex issue. As a new staffer, I do not pretend to be an expert on all the details yet. I am still in the learning process, reading about the proposed"Praire Line" and listening to constituent opinions. That is why your input is so important to both Adam and myself. It is my hope to perhaps meet with you in the next few weeks to learn more about your position on the"Praire Line". In the meantime, I look forward to working with you in the months and years to come on issues of mutual concern. Sincerely, Milt Reimers Field Representative Congressman Adam Smith PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Law Offices BETTS PATTERSON &MINES, P s. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Stephen L. Day Phone: 206-292-9988 eMail: sday@bpmlaw.com December 7, 1998 Mr. Ken Garmann Director of Public Works City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Re: Purchase of BNSF Branch Dear Mr. Garmann: Enclosed for your review is our invoice for costs and services rendered in the above-referenced matter. If it is satisfactory, we ask that you kindly place the invoice for payment in the ordinary course. Thank you for allowing Betts, Patterson &Mines to represent City of Yelm in this matter. Sincerely, Stephen L. Da / P Y SLD:smt Enclosure Law Offices BETTS PATTERSON &MINES, P s. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Stephen L. Day Phone: 206-292-9988 eMail: sday@bpmlaw.com November 10, 1998 Mr. Ken Garmann Director of Public Works City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Re: Purchase of BNSF Branch Dear Mr. Garmann: Enclosed for your review is our invoice for costs and services rendered in the above-referenced matter. If it is satisfactory, we ask that you kindly place the invoice for payment in the ordinary course. T ank you for allowing Betts, Patterson& Mines to represent the City of Yelm in this matter. S' c ely, Step en L. Da SLD:smt Enclosure h FPUGET SOUNDS - -- _ _ _ n PACIFIC - -77 - NEWS-FO-R-PUGET=SOUNDz&=P.A�CIFiC-CUSTOMERS,EMPLOa!EES;.AND=FRIEN--- January-February January-February 1999 No.5 Washington Short Line PSOP carloadings rise Railroad Association ---- ----- - Despite a sharp decline in lumber clined more than 60%in November and Recently the short lines and regional and log shipments in December, the December as a result of very depressed railroads in Washington have joined Puget Sound&Pacific Railroad posted prices.Inbound shipments of pulp have forces to create a Washington Short an 18,4%increase in carloadings in the also fallen because customers have Line Railroad Association. We will be fourth quarter of 1998. Total volume been buying international pulp. "But mailing you an information packet de- was 2,372 units, versus 2,004 in the Oc- that business is coming back," Foster ---scribing-the-goals-of-the-organization--tober-December period a year ago. _ notes There are now 16 short line and re- PS&P's monthly average for the entire year was 816 carloads, which is a 25/0 gional railroads in Washington state, rise from 1997. with a total of more than 1,000 miles of Tom Foster, PS&P's vice president PS&P to expand UP track.This is one third of the total mile- . and general manager attributes the interchange at age in the state.Moreover,these smaller growth to the railroad's success gain- Blakeslee )ct. railroads are very important to the rural ing new customers and reactivating areas of the state, where economic former rail accounts. "We're scratch- development efforts need most to suc- ing to get new business," says Foster. Due to growing levels of business ceed.As an example,our line to Grays D&B Trucking, Tacoma, Wash., be- with the Union Pacific Railroad, Puget Harbor is a vital transportation link on gan using PS&P to originate steel scrap Sound&Pacific will construct a second which the port is dependent for its in- shipmentsfrom Bremerton,Wash.North siding at Blakeslee Junction, Wash., dustrial development program. Star Timber has reactivated a rail spur which is scheduled to be completed In general,the goal of the Associa- that had not been used in ten years by April 30. tion is to promote the recognition and (see story,page 2),,Suburban Propane, "Not only did we build a 5,400 ff. important role of the state's short lines. Centralia, Wash., recently began re- siding last year," says PS&P VP and We seek equitable treatment in areas ceiving product from Canada in rail General Manager Tom Foster, "we're of taxation and regulatory controls vis- cars for the first time, instead of by going to put in another track this year truck. "We welcome these new cus- to make our operation easier and to a-vis our primary competition—the tomers to the PS&P,"says Foster. facilitate better interchange between truckers. Moreover, we urge the state Log shipments,which had been av- our two companies. We filled that sid- legislature to fully fund the Essential eraging up to 120 cars a month, de- ing up numerous times last year." Freight Rail Assistance Program at the recommended level of$10 million an- ----- nually.This will ensure the preservation Carloads - - and enhancement of the light density 1;000 freight lines in the state. I Your support for these goals is ap- preciated. 900 DAVE PARKINSON CHAIRMAN i 800 P _ The mission of the Puget Sound S 700 Pacific Railroad: ' 1j[ PUGET SOUND S PACIFIC O Customer-oriented,reliable, ( 600 Monthly carloadings and cost-competitive I I 1998 1997 rail/intermodal { transportation services. ' 500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 0ct Nov Dec SOUND:L-INES___�=___® Janua_ry4ebruary 1999 Track is back at North Star PSOP machine operators certified In November 1998, North Star Lum- try has been in a long, protracted slide Puget Sound & Pacific engineering ber,Bay Shore(Shelton),Wash„began for the last year or so and reactivating personnel recently completed a certi- shipping carloads of lumber over the rail service worked out fine. The rates fication program and now carry Jami- Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad. were competitive with just about any nated cards showing that they are fully "We shipped only four or five that other mode, including barge. I'm glad qualified to operate a variety of rail- month,buttheywere the first carsto go they did whatthey did.And itkeeps the road and construction-related equip- out of this siding in 10 years,"says Mike trucking and barge folks honest." ment. Bryan, one of North Star's owners, The North Star changed ownership in The program was developed in con- 45-year old mill had previously relied February following a recent expansion. junction with PS&P's California North- exclusively on trucks. "We built a new "We'll probably be pumping out a car ern and Arizona & California affiliates. sawmill last October and reactivated a day," says Bryan. The mill has also Comprehensive training and testing the track." undergone extensive upgrading with procedures have been set up for each PS&P's new customer is the fiat di- . the addition of labor saving devices, machine operated by the railroad in- rect result of the September 1998 agree- improvements to the dry kiln,and build- cluding: boom truck, back hoe with tie ment between the Class One railroads ing an additional dry kiln. extractor,tamper,ballast regulator,tie and the American Short Line and Re- North Star makes two types of lum- crane, brush hog and scarifier, gional Railroad Association. ber:finished construction material(pri- PS&P's VP and General Manager marily studs that go directly into hous- Training sessions Tom Foster worked with North Star re- ing) and furniture grade hardwoods, Each of PS&P's five engineering em- questing a waiver from the Burlington which are shipped to California, Min- ployees has attended training sessions, Northern and Santa Fe Railway in order nesota, Texas, Europe and Asia. with emphasis on safety and better to route shipments over the Union Pa- Each rail car carries up to 75,000 handling of equipment."It's similar to a cific to-California. "We got two ship- board feet of lumber—the equivalent locomotive engineer,"says Ron Walley, ments we normally would not have of three truck loads, and enough to PS&P's roadmaster."Operators receive handled,"says Foster.Since then,other build about eight typical houses. a study guide and are tested, after rail shipments have moved to Califor- When fully operational,the construc- which they are given a certification nia using joint-line rates. tion mill can produce 100,000 board card indicating which equipment they "Getting thatvarianceforsomecars feet per shift and the hardwood mill are qualified to operate." to go overthe UP helped us immensely," can produce about 30,000 board feet, The certification program was fully says Bryan. "The forest products indus- Bryan says. implemented January 1, 1999.Reviews will be conducted annually. "We're now working on certifying track inspectors,"says Walley.This pro- 0 gram consists of a four-hour class and a 0 Federal Railroad Administration test, Topics cover all of the FRA track and -"- - ---- ; --safety-regulations,-including-those that - o Ir ?MV11 went into effect in October 1998 gov- erning such items as ribbon rail and excepted track. l' SOUND LINES= s PUGET SOUND & PACIFIC RAILROAD I No.401 - 221 GATEWAY ROAD j NAPA,CA 94588 I r (707)254-1414 a DAVID L.PARKINSON,CHAIRMAN ; r !' THOMAS L.SCHLOSSER,PRESIDENT &CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER. S 501 N.2ND ST.,P:O.Box L-2 BANGOR BOUND—Puget Sound&Pacific operates a daily, weekday train ELMA,WA 98541 (360)482-4994 3 serving the U.S. Navy yards at Bangor and Bremerton, Wash. Shipments include THOMAS R.FOSTER,VP&GENERAL MANAGER scrap metal from ships that have been retired and dismantled. _ WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1. Report No. RAILROAD INSPECTION REPORT 2. District /✓i? 3. Page 1 of INSPECTOR I.D.NO. 4. COMPANY OR CITY,COUNTY OFFICIAL 5. RECEIP'I'AGKNOWLEDGED ` 6. RAILROAD // 7. CODE 8. _YEAR MONTH DAY 9. VIOLATION REPORT FILED 10. DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 90. 11. TYPE OF INSPECTION 12. i /irJ /otiT r<n1 a1 l9 t� / 1. Yes C 2. No INSPECTION POINT 8 LOCATION 13. RAILROAD DIVISION 14. RAILROAD SUBDIVISION 15. COUNTY 16. FROM STATION OR CITY TO STATION OR CITY 17. INSPECTION SUMMARY GRADE CROSSINGS 18• WALKWAYS 19. BRIDGES 20• SANITATION STATIC 21. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL22• CLOSE CLEARANCE 23. RADAR 24. OTHER 25. 1— 2— LOCO CAB OC FACILITY FECTIVE UNITS INSPECTED 26. 27- A MILEPOSTS UNIT C INSP.D A B C D CORRECTIVE ITEM YARD I.D. TYPE RCW/WAC RULE DEFECT DESCRIPTION ACTION/DATE LOCATIONCODE ..� TFe l ! n 1r t \ . - 7 INSP. TYPE CODES: GX Grade Crossing WW Walkways BR Bridges RS Rolling Stock SF Static Facility CC Close Clearance RA Radar HBA Hazardous Material OT Other UTC-TRR 028 (Rev.3/90) -1459- - 3 - - Title FirstName LastName Addressl City State PostalCode Address2 Senator Slade Gorton 730 Hart Senate Washington DC 20510-4701 . Office Building Congressman Adam Smith 1505 Longworth Washington DC 20515 ��� Building Director James H. Slakey Transportation Olympia WA 98504-7300 PO Box Building 47300 Executive Director Cecelia Jenkins PO Box 444 Yelm WA 98597 Mr. John Thompson 701 Prairie Park Yelm WA 98597 PO Box Lane NE 5210 Senator Patty Murray 2088 Jackson Seattle WA 98174-1003 915 2nd Federal Building Avenue Executive Director Nick Handy 915 Washington Olympia WA 98501-6931 Street NE Senator Karen Fraser 22nd Legislative Olympia WA 98504 PO Box District 40482 Mayor Joel Derefield PO Box 700 Roy WA 98580-0700 Executive Director Dennis Matson Economic Olympia WA 98501 721 Development Columbia Council S W Senator Marilyn Rasmussen 412-B Olympia WA 98504-0482 PO Box Legislative 40482 Building Representative Sandra Romero 415 Legislative Olympia WA 98504-0600 PO Box Building 40600 DL -S�% lot Nam-(" �� U/OA Com, �v Da L-j cam, DI� rv-pt14 , WA gVsb� 3'zDv ��cc VI 6A-%T Cz, � C — i1S�a�Ti�l«, F—Dc LADJA4 �a blob (�t��s G�r<c �r►c� fid , S . me . 0 . �b k SZIO OA P� tax / SOF 'iHE A�p� 4 M City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P.O. Box 479 WABHINaTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 February 2, 1999 rl�.� Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for returning my phone call January 7th of this year, regarding the BNSF "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview. As I understand our conversation regarding our letter to Mr. Jerry Johnson, the BNSF is not interested in conveying the"Prairie Line" to the City of Yelm, at this time. Specifically as outlined in our letter: • The BNSF will not grant a"first right of refusal" for the right of way improvements or traffic on the"Nisqually Line" as this may become part of the Amtrak route south of Tacoma. • The BNSF will not grant interchange rights at the Tacoma Yard due to the potential of conflicts with existing labor agreements. • The BNSF will not grant, nor create any short line operations between Roy and Lakeview including Ft. Lewis traffic, Roy traffic nor Wilcox traffic at this time. Additionally, the BNSF will not allow any interchange at Roy from the Yelm to Roy segment. • The BNSF will consider the transfer of the Yelm to Roy segment to the City in the'near future. Naturally, we are disappointed that the BNSF is not more receptive to our proposal. The community involvement and efforts put forth to develop and fund our plan have been 1 enormous, and the sense of community pride in this project has had significant local and regional support as well. We are also disappointed that we did not receive a reply from Mr. Johnson, as at our June 26th meeting he seemed receptive to the idea of developing a"short line" from Yelm to Lakeview. It was this seed that encouraged the Cities of Yelm and Roy, the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in both communities to expend substantial time and energy pursuing this idea. Based on this encouragement from Mr. Johnson we have all carefully developed what we view as a practical a meaningful multi-community consensus on strategies to both preserve current rail use and expand future service over the"Prairie Line". In fact, as we stated in our original letter, it is our strong desire to dramatically increase the traffic on this line, allowing the BNSF to enjoy additional revenues without increased cost. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit local rail users and meet our "Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. We request the BNSF reconsider its position on the development of the"Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview as a short line and work with the City of Yelm to realize this goal. It should be apparent that Mr. Johnson's initial encouragement created broad community support and positive hope for BNSF's partnership in fostering our community's economic growth. It would be most unfortunate to see all this positive community effort come to an untimely and unfortunate conclusion. Perhaps it would be beneficial for a representative of the BNSF to meet with our group to discuss these issues and explore avenues available to make the Prairie Line a reality for the City of Yelm. We await your favorable reply. Please direct your correspondence to my attention. If you have any questions, feel free to call my office at (360)458-8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm 6 i Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO Jerry Johnson, BNSF 2 '� c O Yelm M 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELM WASHINGTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 December 2, 1998 Mr. Jerry Johnson, Assistant Vice President Asset Rationalization Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth, TX 76161-0052 . RE: Prairie Line Dear Mr. Johnson, The City of Yelm adopted our "Transportation Comprehensive Plan" in 1992 and amended the plan in 1997 to meet objectives of the State of Washington's "Growth Management Plan". The plan includes a component for the development of alternative modes of freight and passenger mobility, specifically, the development and utilization of multi-modal rail. Over the past few years, service on the "Prairie Line" from Yelm, milepost 25.55 to Lakeview, milepost 8.55 has been limited due to a declining shipper base and increasing (for`BNSF) cost of providing service. This past spring, it came to our attention that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company was intending to liquidate the Yelm to Roy segment of the "Prairie Line" thus severing an important transportation link to commercial/industrial development in Yelm. The potential loss of freight and passenger rail connections with other significant markets has proven to be a valuable catalyst for our community. Since our meeting with you on June 26th, the City of Yelm, Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in our community have been actively meeting to develop strategies which include the preservation of current service and development of future rail traffic on the "Prairie Line". The cities of Yelm and Roy have passed resolutions establishing the frame- 1 of 3 work for the ownership of the Yelm branch line, to provide a short.line rail service over what has been historically known as the "Prairie Line". We have funds available to invest in the preservation of track, bridges and crossings, as well as to promote future business. We are ready to proceed and submit this letter to the Burlington,Northern Santa Fe Railway as our statement of intent and interest in beginning negotiations for acquisition of the "Prairie Line" from Yelm, milepost 25.55 to Lakeview, milepost 8.55. To ensure the success of our plan, the City is interested in certain operational considerations outlined below to provide efficient rail operations to current shippers, as well as to develop new business and future shippers. Therefore, we propose the following: 1. The acquisition of all assets by the City of Yelm, including right of way, physical improvements (track, bridges, buildings, real estate contracts, easement agreements and other revenue generators) and traffic from Yelm, milepost 25.55 to Lakeview, milepost 8.55 for the purpose of developing a short line rail operation. 2. The "first right of refusal" for acquisition of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right of way, improvements and traffic known as the "Nisqually Line" from Nisqually to Tacoma which includes Dupont and Lakeview with connections to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe mainline. 3. An agreement with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company to interchange at the Tacoma Yard to expedite efficient transfer of traffic between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and the "Prairie Line". 4. The "Prairie Line" will service all current and future traffic on the short line (with the exception of train load lots of six or more cars from Fort Lewis) and deliver these cars to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe.Railway Tacoma Yard for integration into the Burlington Northern Santa Fe system. Our proposal will continue the present operation and revenue stream to Burlington Northern Santa Fe from current shippers on the "Prairie Line" through the selection of an appropriate rail contractor. The City of Yelm desires to continue service to existing customers and to aggressively market and develop significant new rail shippers. This will relieve the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway of the cost of providing service on this stub branch line, yet allow the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to continue to enjoy the revenue stream generated from the "Prairie Line". In fact, it is our strong intent to dramatically increase the traffic on this line, allowing the Burlington Northern Santa Fe to enjoy additional revenues without increased costs. 2 of 3 1 � The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway will recognize cost savings by circumventing service with its own equipment and crews throughout the length of our branch line, the elimination of most maintenance cost, and the elimination of certain liabilities, while enjoying continued current revenue streams and increased future revenue as the City of Yelm develops business on the "Prairie Line". The ownership and operation of the "Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit local rail users and meet our "Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's continued interest in serving Ft. Lewis will be included in our overall plan, to be negotiated between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and the City of Yelm. For us, time is of the essence on this matter, and we would request your reply by December 30, 1998. Please direct all correspondence to the attention of Ken Garmann, Public Works Director. If you have any questions, feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garm n �� Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Ba ger, AO att: acknowledgements letters of support map 98-bnsf9 3 of 3 Law Offices BETTS PATTERSON & MINES, P s. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Stephen L. Day Phone: 206-292-9988 eMail: sday@bpmlaw.com February 9, 1999 Mr. Ken Garmann Director of Public Works City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm,WA 98597 Re: Rail Rights-Of-Way-Valuation Dear Ken: I thought you might be interested in these background articles on rail rights-of-way valuation. Please call me if you have any questions. je rehen L. y SLD:tic Enclosures a\data\day\5782\01\gannanm rightsofway.doc 1 A Frederick D. Miltenberger, MAI Rail Right-of-Way Valuation Railroad companies continually abandon unprofitable lines. This article presents three valuation scenarios for rights-of-way, including net liquidation value for for- mal abandonment purposes, post-abandonment market value analysis, and the possibility of corridor enhancement. While not every corridor is a candidate for non-rail corridor use,an alternative use may enhance a rail corridor's value.Such factors as timing and location are examined, and the results of several previous studies on rail corridor values are considered in this article. i several thousand miles of rail vitalization and Regulatory Re- right-of-way have been abandoned form Act of 1976. In addition, the in the United States over the last Consolidated Rail Corporation and 20 years. In a number of cases they Amtrak were created. The rights- have simply been disassembled and of-way of many bankrupt roads sold on a piecemeal basis. When were conveyed to these new cor- an alternative corridor use is found, porations using legislatively and however, a right=of--way may well administratively defined concepts sell at more than at-the-fence(ATS rather than market value concepts.I value. In the current market appraisers . During the 1970s the concept of may be asked to value rail rights- net liquidation value, which in- of-way because of abandonment, cluded the premise that the highest to facilitate the sale of individual and best use of rail right-of--way was parcels subsequent to abandon- for non-rail purposes, dominated ment, and for alternative corridor the valuation of rail right-of-way. use. Many Eastern railroad companies were then in bankruptcy. To pre- ABANDONMENT serve a semblance of rail service, APPRAISALS the United States Congress enacted the Regional Rail Reorganization National carriers currently analyze Act of 1973 and the Railroad Re- routes to determine their profit- For a genual discussion of nc(liquidation value,administrative and legal matters,sec Edward B.Atherton.—The 120.000-Mile Valuation Problem."The Appraisal Journal(July 1978):340. Frederick D.Miltenberger,MAI,is principal in Miltenbuger Associates,areal estate appraisal and consulting firm in Muncie. Indiana. He received both a BS and an MBA in real es(a(c from Indiana University. 79 • r ability. When a particular route is parcels, the cost of marketing those unprofitable and is likely to remain parcels, and the preparation of so, service is often discontinued. documents of conveyance as well In some instances, the tracks may , as the time involved in marketing.3 be leased to a regional carrier who In his article, "Rail Corridor is in a position to operate more Sales," Clifford A. Zoll discusses profitably than the national car- the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 and. rier.2 In other cases, a national car- the decision of the ICC in the Chi- rier may decide to abandon the line. cago and Northwestern Transpor- Because it is the public policy of tation Company Abandonment. the United States to maintain rail According to Zoll, "The Staggers service when possible, abandon- Act has brought an entirely new ment is not a unilateral decision of dimension to the appraiser's ap- the carrier. Any abandonment pro- proach to the valuation of rail cor- ceeding must be filed with the In- ridors. Because of the flexibility of terstate Commerce Commission_. the Act,_many railroads now re- (ICC). quest the appraiser to estimate first Users of rail service and the the net liquidation value as Inter- public in general have the right to preted by the ICC in C&NW GLA oppose an abandonment. If, how- hearing and then provide either an ever, the ICC determines that an ATF value estimate or a going- abandonment is appropriate, the concern value estimate."4 The ICC carrier involved must first offer the definition of value for abandon- right-of-way to other railroads. ment purposes is as follows. The ICC has established guide- The net liquidation value, for their lines for valuing a right-of-way in highest and best non-rail use pur- an abandonment proceeding. When poses, of the rail properties on the an abandonment is contemplated, line to be subsidized which are the appraiser must follow ICC used and required for perfor- guidelines. Those guidelines were mance of the services requested first delineated as a result of the by the person offering the sub- Chicago and Northwestern Trans- sidy. This value shall be deter- portation Company abandonment mined by computing the current between Ringwood, Illinois, and appraised market value of such Geneva, Wisconsin. The ICG de- properties for other than rail transportation purposes, less all cision indicated that the concept of costs of dismantling and dispo- net liquidation value should in- sition of improvements necessary clude portions of right-of-way to make.the remaining properties owned in fee only and that other available for their highest and best rights. in land were not to be vat- use and complying with applica= - ued, which is the general rule. In ble zoning, land use, and envi- respect to easements and other ronmental regulations.s lesser interests, state law is fol- In an abandonment appraisal, an lowed. This policy further requires appraiser normally estimates the an appraiser to consider the dis- ATF value of land adjacent to the position of a number of small land right-of-way. The characteristics of 2. More regional carriers ane in existence than is commonly thought_The Oficial Railway Guide, (New York: International Thompson Transport Press, Sept.—Oct 1989)for example, lists over 20 regional carriers operating in Indiana. These carriers operate from as few as 1 mile or 3 miles of tracks to 150 miles or more of tracks.See pages C98—C103.. 3. interstate Commerce Commission,AB-1 (Sub-No.70F),Chicago and Northwestern Transpor- tation Company-Abandonment Between Ringwood, Illinois,and Geneva. Wisconsin, 198I. 4. Clifford A. Zoll, "Rail Corridor Sales," The Appraisal Journal(July 1985): 38 1. 5. ICC Regulation 49 C.F.R. § 1152.3(c). 80 The Appraisal Journal, January 1992 u , i adjacent land are likely to be at least well as excess land acquired for In most somewhat different than the char- nonoperating use are typically ex= instances, case acteristics of the right-of-way— cluded from an abandonment ap- particularly in terms of topogra- praisal. It therefore is necessary to studies can serve phy, shape, and soil characteris- appropriately classify operating and as a basis for tics. Typical purchasers may there- nonoperating lands. discounting ATF fore assign the right-of-way a In most instances, case studies different value than that of sur- can serve as a basis for discounting values. rounding lands. When possible, an ATF values. The costs associated appraiser should research case with a sale of a number of small studies on past right-of-way sales parcels must then be considered. to determine the difference, if any, These costs include brokerage fees between the ATF values assigned and legal fees. 'It appears reason- by the marketplace and the values able, for example, to apply pre- of actual rights-of-way. vailing-brokerage fees-in the area In the experience.of the author, as a sales expense, and to provide typical buyers are willing to pay for deed preparation and other le- between 40% and 60% of ATF gal expenses. values for agricultural lands in the The last step in an abandonment Midwest. On a parcel-by-parcel valuation is to consider the issue of basis, considerable variation oc- a holding period. Some right-of-- curs. The 40% to 60% range rep- way parcels may be attractive to resents a typical reaction.to right- adjoining property owners and will of-way offerings. The difference is thus sell quickly. In other cases, less a result of size and shape than the parcels may be less attractive of the fact that a typical buyer must or the adjoining property' owners bear the cost of clearing a right-of- may not have the financial strength way to merge it into a farming op- to acquire them. Such parcels may eration. To some extent, a typical take longer to sell. With the help buyer also considers the fact that of an aggressive marketing effort, because some.ballast'will remain a typical disposal period'for a in the cleared right-of-way, the stretch of rail right-of-way is from productivity of a right-of-way is one year to three years. However, somewhat less than that of adjoin- a typical holding period is more ing lands—particularly in dry years. difficult to define. The author has Further, a typical buyer places a thus arbitrarily assigned an aver- right-of--way under .a heavy pro- age holding period of approxi- gram of fertilization for the fust two mately 1.5 years and further dis- years to four years to bring the for- counted the value of the right-of- mer right-of-way to reasonable way by a present worth factor that productivity levels. reflects the risk associated with in- The reaction of buyers to urban vestments in land. land may be differentAn"many in- While the ICC definition of value stances, urban right-of-way is at for abandonment purposes raises grade or nearly at grade with sur- the issues of the cost of disman- rounding lands, and little, if any, tling as well as the disposition of clearing is required. In such cases improvements, these aspects have a buyer may be willing to pay ATF not been factors in the author's past value for that land. Unlike in ag- assignments. Typically, 'the sal- ricultural areas, productivity is not vage value of rail, ties, and other a consideration in urban settings. track materials greatly exceeds the Often railroads own land outside cost of their dismantling. When a of an operating right-of-way. Such property is not conveyed to an- parcels as former station sites as other railroad company, the rail and Miltenberger: Rail Right-o(--Way Valuation. 81 a other track materials are usually the security of his industrial facil- salvaged. Depending on the status ity by acquiring the right-of-way of the metals market, this can be and fencing it. In older areas, extremely profitable to a railroad buildings commonly encroach on company. rail right-of-way. After abandon- ment, a premium may be attached POST-ABANDONMENT to those parcels on which an en- APPRAISALS croachment exists. Post-abandonment appraisals are Occasionally, an appraiser may be market value appraisals; therefore, asked to value specific land parcels .prevailing appraisal theory and that have previously been aban- practice are followed. This is not doned. In such cases, ICC guide- the case in an abandonment ap- lines do not apply. While it is ap- praisal because of the use of net propriate to consider whether the liquidation value .concepts, even market reacts differently to right- though the process begins with the of_-way than it does_to ATF prop- market value of ATF parcels. erty, the consideration of sale ex- pense and legal fees required under CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT ICC regulations is not necessary. The discount for a holding period An early reference to the possibil- may be applicable, depending on ity of enhanced value for rail cor- the nature of the specific parcel to ridors appears in George R. Bee- be appraised. tle's "Railway Right-of-Way Use In an abandonment appraisal, an and Economic Value," in which he appraiser may analyze several notes that, "Proposals to abandon hundred parcels. In a post-aban- railroad branch lines are numerous donment appraisal, however, an today. If those proposals are im- appraiser typically examines one plemented, many miles of assem- parcel. In the case of a single par- bled right-of-way may be lost. The cel, the motivations of typical buy- difficulties encountered and the ers are both easier to consider and costs incurred by many in recent more. significant. In some in- years attempting to assemble new stances, those motivations might right-of-way confirm the fact that cause a buyer to be willing to pay assembled right-of-way represents more than ATF values. For ex- a resource for society that should ample, a right-of-way that cut di- - not be discarded lightly. Railroad agonally across several farming right-of-way now perceived as un- parcels sold to surrounding prop- economic may have valuable fu- erty owners for more than ATF. ture uses for highways, utility lines, value.Their motivation was to join pipelines, and even special-pur- their farms into a single unit and pose railroads that may become to- eliminate point rows, thus in- necessary if energy resources con- creasing the efficiency of overall tinue to be depleted."6 farming operations. Further, John P. Dolman and In another instance, a right-of- Charles F. Seymour list 22 alter- way in an industrial area also sold native corridor uses in their article, for more than ATF value. The pur- "Valuation of Transportation/ chaser, an adjoining land owner, Communication Corridors," ob- was able to significantly increase serving that, "A long narrow strip 6. George R. Beetle. -Railway Right-0f--Way Use and Economic Value," The Appraisal Jourrtal (October 1977):518. 82 The Appraisal Journal, January 1992' of land has value because of its (0.96 and 0.873) included in the ability to connect two points with total sale price a very substantial resulting benefit. If there is eco- amount of non-real estate. "En- _ nomic advantage to connecting gineering" succeeded in getting a these points with a long narrow strip major portion of the price allo- cated to non-real estate either to of land, it becomes a transporta- avoid showing a loss or to mini- tion/communications corridor, mize loss for that department. The which, in truth,enjoys special value amount remaining was allocated characteristics."' DoIman and to real estate and was not repre- Seymour further note that "The best sentative of the.corridor price. evidence of real estate.value usu- This may be the case with other ally is the price obtained for sim- sales with ratios below 1.00, be- ilar properties in the marketplace. cause in many sales only a small . . . The 'two sources of data to portion of the price was allocated development enhancement factors to real estate. In most sales with are acquisition cost of a substitute ratios above 1, however, the full corridor and sales of other.existing sale.price applied to real estate and none to non-real estate. corridors.„” In respect to rail corridors, Zoll In "Rail Corridor Sales," Zoll concludes that, "When a need,for examined 82 right-of--way sales a corridor exists, a reasonable ATF between 1975 and 1983. Of those price ratio will vary from 1.10 to transactions, 72 involved aban- 200 depending upon the extent of doned corridors, 46.34% were the need and the cost of substitu- purchased for continued transpor- tion. The upper range of this ratio tation use, 14.64% were for return may be hi her in special urban to agricultural use, and 13.41% „ o were for transmission line use. situations: In a working paper,_ David One of the main objectives of this Harris equates the value of rail analysis is to determine the tela- corridors to the cost of acquiring tionship of an appraiser's at the fence(ATF) estimated unit value electrical transmission line ease- to the sale unit price to determine ments in Mississippi and Tennes- what effect,if any,continuity has see. His analysis of the acquisition on sale prices. In 41 transactions of some 241 parcels reveals that of . the independent appraiser's per total costs, the land costs were ap- acre unit value and per acre ATF proximately 55% and acquisition unit value were furnished. In these costs were 45%.t1 Clearly, ATF 41 cases, the range in ATF unit values are not the only component value to sales price was 0.18 to to consider when a corridor is pre- 3.73. The median ratio was . pared for use. - 1.0000. Twenty sales had ratios Harris further notes that the below 1.0000,21 sales had ratios Tennessee Department of Trans- of 1.0000 or above, and the ra- tios above 1.00 ranged from 1.05 portation estimates its administra- to 3.73. tive costs at $2,500 per parcel and Two of the sales whose ATF/ that, if condemnation is involved, sale price ratios were below 1 those costs are 33%of the fee sim- 7. John P. Dolman and Charles F.Seymour, "Valuation of Transportation/Communication Cor- ridors,"The Appraisal Journal(October 1978):515. 8. [bid., 519- 9. Zoll, 384. 10. Ibid., 387- [L 87.l1. David Harris, unpublished working paper, 1989_ Miltenberger: Rail Right-of-Way Valuation 83 3 The acquisition pie value.12 In the case of the Vir- example, in 1989 Penn Central cost of an ginia Department of Transporta- . Corporation sold 21.85 miles of existing corridor tion, administrative costs were right-of-way averaging 100 feet in estimated at$1,500 per parcel,and width to a pipeline company in east clearly may be condemnation costs at approxi- central Indiana. The purchase price less than the mately 30% of fee simple value. was equivalent to $1,159 per acre. Harris's study shows that signif- ATF values were $500 per acre to cost of icant differences exist between the $700 per acre.-Assuming an aver- establishing a acquisition of an electrical trans- age ATF value of $600 per acre, new corridor, mission line and a rail corridor. He this sale produced an enhancement and an existing suggests such adjustments as factor over ATF values of 1.93. In changing from easement to fee another instance, in 1986 a rail- corridor also simple, accounting for more sig- road sold 24.2 acres in a 4.14-mile may be acquired nificant damages to the residue, and strip to a power company. The more quickly. considering administrative costs, property, located in northeastern and concludes that the corridor en- Indiana, was purchased at approx- hancement factor may be as much imately $2,479 per acre. At the as 2.52 times greater than ATF time, the prevailing agricultural value. This estimate is within the values were from$600 per acre to range of enhancement factors found $700 per acre. Assuming an aver- in the Zoll study previously dis- age ATF value of $650 per acre, cussed. Both the Zoll and Hams this corridor enhancement pre- studies support the general con- mium was 3.8 times ATF values. clusion reached by Dolman and Another case occurred in 1981, Seymour that, when economic when Penn Central Corporation sold benefit is derived, corridor en- 16.7 miles of right-of-way in Ohio hancement value exists. In addi- to a utility company for$3,125 per tion, the acquisition cost of an ex- acre. Land values in the area ranged isting corridor clearly may be less from$1,250 per acre to$2,439 per, than the cost of establishing a new acre. Again, there is evidence of corridor, and an existing corridor enhanced corridor value. Finally, also may be acquired more quickly. in 1984, a railroad sold 15.5 miles Both, however, are economically in central Illinois to a utility com- beneficial to a potential user of the pany for $2,794 per acre for the corridor. 187.88 acres. When contrasted with In 1985 a railroad acquired 28.63 their sale in the following year of acres in northeastern Indiana. The 20 miles for non-corridor use at purpose of the acquisition was to $536.26 per acre, the corridor sold establish a new rail corridor to serve for approximately 5.29 times the an industrial plant. The acquired disassembly or speculative pur- land area was in a largely agricul- chase price in the same locale. tural neighborhood. The acquisi- tion cost was $13,338 per acre, CONCLUSION which was substantially higher than prevailing agricultural values.This The relevant rail right-of-way lit- transaction demonstrates the rela- erature reveals that both at the time tively high cost of acquiring new of rail reorganization in the 1970s corridors. and under current ICC regulation, The author has examined several rail right-of-way has been valued transactions in which a premium differently depending on whether has been paid for a corridor. For for legal or administrative pur- 12. [bid. 84 The Appraisal Journal, January 1992 poses. Such approaches do not ber of rail corridors have been conform with normal market value disassembled and sold piecemeal definitions. implies that not every corridor is a Further, those familiar with the candidate for non-rail corridor use_ valuation process clearly perceive Little research has been under- that corridor values may be greater taken to identify which attributes than ATF values. The independent make a continuation of a corridor studies of both Harris and Zoll, re= viable. spectively, suggest that viable cor- Another issue is timing. Some ridors have a value higher than ATF corridor sales examined by the au- value. The Zoll study is particu- thor in which a premium was paid larly relevant because it is based occurred considerably Iater than the on the analysis of actual rail cor- abandonment. Thus, even if a par- ridor transactions. The author's in- ticular strip of rail right-of-way has vestigation of rail corridor trans- attributes that make it a viable cor- actions suggests that enhancement ridor for non-rail use, there is no of corridor values does occur.That assurance that the non-rail use will enhancement generally is within the emerge quickly. In some in- range of 1.10 to 3.73 found in the stances, holding cost and oppor- Zoll study. tunity cost could conceivably off- In the case of rail corridor en- set the enhanced value finally hancement, several unresolved is- received. sues remain. The fact that a num- Miltenberger: Rail Right-of--Way Valuation 85 an,S less :nds the tion rest wer 1 Rail Corridor Sales by Clifford A. Zoll, MAI A great many articles have been written on the valuation of transportation and communication corridors. They have dealt with the nature of such corridors, their uses, ownership, and the art of appraising them. Some articles have considered the unique characteristics, special benefits,assemblage valuation, demand for ex- isting corridors, and methodology resulting from the quite different concepts of value compared with more conventional appraisal value estimates.' This is not to say that the same basic methods of appraisal do not apply. In corridor appraisals the appraiser must clearly identify the subject matter, ascer- tain the purpose of the appraisal, fully state the assumptions, limitations, and con- ditions, identify the highest and best use of the subject corridor, and determine the date of the valuation. The purpose of this article is to present an analysis of actual sales in an effort to set forth factual data that may be useful in appraising and marketing rail corridors. I. See for example John P.Dolman and Charles F Seymour, "Valuation of Transportation/Communication Corridors;' the Appraisal Journal(October 1918): 509-522. Clifford A.Zoll, MAI,is president of Clifford A.Zoll, Blackmore and Associates of Chicago,a full service commercial and industrial real estate firm. Mr. Zoll has been engaged in numerous aspects of the real estate business such as mortgage financing and trust(bank)real estate asset management,and as an appraiser and real estate counselor. S ZOLL:Rail Corridor Sales 379 r The appraisal of railroad corridors almost always involves land only. The ap- praisals do not include rail, ballast, ties, tie plates, turnouts, signal systems, or rolling stock. Occasionally they may include a building that was a passenger sta- tion, a freight house, or a round house. The subject land is usually a long strip 100 feet in width, with larger widths where there have been stations, side tracks, assembly yards, or service buildings. The corridors were usually assembled by acquiring parts of larger ownerships, and may have been obtained by warranty deed,quitclaim deed, railroad deed for use,condemnation;easement,map filing, adverse possession, or ordinance. One railroad vice president for real estate said the condition of title of a specific line has a significant bearing on negotiations that lead;to an agreed upon sales price.The selling railroad would tell a prospective purchaser,who planned to con- tinue using the line for rail purposes, that title is sufficient for the buyer's intended user Therefore the price should reflect an assemblage value. The purchaser would argue that alternative purchasers such as adjoining owners would probably pay less than net liquidation value or at the fence value. Net liquidation value is the estimated aggregate price, discounted for time required for sale, that adjoining owners pay for the tracts of land to which the selling railroad has good title. At the fence value (ATF) is the estimated sale price based on the unit price of sales of similar land adjoining the subject. Obviously this price is greater than net liqui- dation (unit) price. THE STAGGERS RAIL ACT OF 1980 This act(Public Law 96-148)provides that if a financially responsible entity files an offer to purchase a line of a railroad seeking to abandon it, and while the re- quest is pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the abandonment certificate may be postponed for 30 days to permit the railroad and the prospec- tive purchaser.time to negotiate a mutually acceptable transaction. If they fail to do so, either party may request the ICC to establish the selling price. After the selling price is established the prospective purchaser may with- draw the offer, while the railroad is.required to sell at that price even though it may view the price as unacceptably low. Either party may appeal the decision of the ICC. CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN ABANDONMENT One of the first cases under the provisions of the Staggers Rail Act involved the abandonment of a line between Ringwood, Illinois, and Lake Geneva, Wis- consin, owned by the Chicago & North Western Transportation Company (C&NW).2 The prospective purchaser was the Geneva Lake Area Joint Transit Commission (GLA). The C&NW asked $1,913,536 (land $753,100, track and structures $1,160,436); GLA offered $985,000 (land $275,000, track and struc- 2. Interstate Commerce Ruling in Chicago&North western Transportation Compatry Abandonment between Ringwood, Illinois, and Lake Geneva,Wisconsin, ICC Docket#AB4 (Sub-No. 70F),July 22, 1981. 380 77te Appraisal Journal, July 1985 ti,. r rhe ap- tures $710,000). The C&NW based its valuation on the appraisal value of the land :ms, or as an assembled transportation corridor plus net salvage value of track and other ;er sta- materials. Statute 49 USC 1905 (f)(1)(C) provides simply that `'in no case shall ig strip the commission set a price below the fair market value of the line." tracks, The commission then discussed the valuation standard and noted Section 401 ,led by of the Staggers Act provides that the purchase price cannot be set at less than the trranty net liquidation value or the going-concern value. This provision of the act gives filing, rise to a flexible interpretation for going-concern value that probably includes as- semblage or continuity value and would be greater than net Iiquidation value as pecific previously defined. Since abandonment had been requested, only the net liquida- i sales tion value was considered. .o con- _ The railroad's appraiser was directed to assume that 1) title was transferrable, tended 2)-title was good and salable for rail purposes, and 3) the highest and best use would was a rail transportation corridor because the prospective purchaser intended to ly Pay use the entire corridor for transportation purposes. The appraiser defined fair market is the value as acquisition cost for rail purposes and established an ATF value, plus 20% pining for assemblage for the entire corridor of 208.297 acres. Je. At The GLA appraiser valued only those tracts of land that had been conveyed sales to the railroad by warranty or quitclaim deed, a total of 94.0209 acres. The acre- liqui- age was valued at its net liquidation value if sold to adjoining landowners and dis- counted for selling time and selling costs. No assemblage value was included. The ICC determined that a deed be issued for the entire right-of-way, the purchase files price to be i ie re- Net land valuation ►ment $ 275,000 Net improvements 728,321 spec- Purchase price $1,003,321 :lling with- igh it This contrasted with the C&NW request for $1,913,321. vision C&NW appealed but was denied further consideration. GLA was unable to fund the purchase and close within the specified time, including extensions. C&NW then filed with the ICC a claim for damages in the amount of$21,000, requesting the ICC to order.GLA to pay this sum to C&NW. This request was granted and Aved an order to pay issued. Wis- The Staggers Act has brought an entirely new dimension to the appraiser's pany approach to the valuation of rail corridors. Because of the flexibility of the act, -ansit many railroads now request the appraiser to estimate first the net liquidation value : and as interpreted by the ICC in the C&NW-GLA hearing and then provide either truc- an ATF value estimate or a going-concern value estimate. BOSTON&MAIN CORPORATION AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ,ween This case presents another view. It was an arbitration proceeding before Richard J. Schoenfeld, Jr., who determined that the highest and best use for a piece of 1985 ZOLL:Rail Corridor Sales 381 land was as a transportation corridor.3 Schoenfeld concluded that the most ap- propriate definition of fair market value appeared in Olson v. United States. Just compensation includes all elements of value that inhere in the property, but it does not exceed the market value fairly determined. The sum required to be paid the owner does not depend upon the uses to which he has devoted his land but it is to be arrived at upon just consideration of all the uses for which it is suitable. The highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future is to be considered, not neces- sarily as a measure of value, but to the full extent that the prospect of demand for such use affects the market value.4 The.arbitrator noted the land had been acquired by condemnation and would re- vert in the event the land was not used for the purpose for which it was taken and that it was an easement in perpetuity. Schoenfeld then discussed the theory of special enhancement (assemblage) and concluded that a factor of two was ap- plicable. Finally, he considered the per mile costs of comparable right-of-way transactions. A recent ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirmed the decision of the ICC that the context of fair market value means net liquidation value for nonrail use,even though the prospective purchaser intends to use the line for a transit system s Thus the appraiser is confronted with a problem. Should the appraisal contain two values? One would be with assemblage employing the principle of substitu- tion, the other of net liquidation value as interpreted by the ICC and the court of appeals from the Staggers Rail Act. LOCATION AND TIME Data on 82 right-of-way sales has been obtained in 22 states and for a recent period of time. This is shown in the tables on the following pages. There is a concentra- tion by number of sales, 58.5%, in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin. If the major urban land sales indicated in the notes are eliminated from consideration,then the mean acreage sales price was$1,818 per acre and is reasonably representative of the majority of sales. However, two major sales are included. One involved 13,755 acres of a right- of-way from Minnesota to Montana at an average price of$807 per acre. The other was 6,775 acres from Washington to Wisconsin at an average price of$1,374 per acre. Both sales included some, but little, acreage in urban areas through which the corridors passed. In terms of time 81.7% of the sales occurred from 1979 through 1982. The number of transactions was probably restricted by high inflation, rising interest rates, and a slowing economy. However, these sales were an indication of the market at that time. 3. Arbitration proceedings before Richard J.Schoenfeld,Jr.,Boston&Main Corporation and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority,August 3Q 1971. 4, Olson v. United States,292 U.S. 246. 5. U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 81-2195. 382 The Appraisal Journal, July 1985 e most ap- TABLE 1 d States. )erty, but it Location I to be paid Florida 1b North Tier of Western States 2 land but it Nebraska is suitable. Delaware 1 2 Idaho 1 New Jersey 2a not neces-and needed Illinois 9 New York iemand for Indiana 1a Ohio 4 Iowa 9C Oklahoma 1 Maine 2 Pennsylvania 20 would re- Maryland 2 Rhode Island 1 was taken Massachusetts 2 South Dakota 3 he theory Michigan 2 Washington ga o was ap- Minnesota 16 Wisconsin 6 ht-of-way a. Indicates a sale in a city or town at a rate in excess of S1o,000 to$15,000 per acre. b. Includes one sale in the city at a rate of more than$100,000 per acre. confirmed c. Involves five sales in towns or cities ranging from$16,000 to$91,000 per acre. iquidation se the line :al contain IF substitu- TABLE 2 e court of Time(Yearly Corridor Sales) 1975 1 -nt period 1977 5 oncentra- 1978 81979 12 gton, and 1980 18 ated from 1981 26 easonably 1982 11 1983 1 )f a right- Total 82 The other 1,374 per gh which 9 through )n, rising SELLERS AND BUYERS kation of Of the 82 sales, 72 were abandoned corridors—though some of the corridors contained usable rails in place at the time of sale—eight were operating lines, and two were the sale of an aerial easement only. The railroad land sold was to be sachus<tts used as shown in table 3. Among buyers there was a strong concentration in political bodies, either for immediate use or land bank purposes (see table 4). ►uly 1985 Zou.:Rail Corridor Sales 383 N TABLE 3 Buyers' Indicated Rail Corridor Land Use Number Percent of total Continued transportation 38 46.34 Return to agricultural use 12 1464 For transmission corridors 11 13.41 Miscellaneous uses 9 10.98 Recreation 5 6.10 Highways 5 6.10 Right-of-way bank 2 243 Total 82 100.00 TABLE 4 Buyers of Rail Corridors Number Percent of total States, counties, municipal bodies or agencies . 29 35.37 Other railroads 17 20.73 Adjoining owners 15 18.29 Industries 11 13.41 Utilities 10 12.20 Total 82 100.00 SUBJECT PROPERTY The nature and characteristics of the sale properties is shown in table 5. Since the data furnished by the cooperating railroads were not complete in all respects, the figures in parentheses indicate the number of sales involved in each of the statistics. SALE PRICE The sale price allocated to the real estate of$128,159,250 ranged in unit price per acre from$128 for a sale of 78 acres in rural South Dakota, to$206,650 for a corridor acquired for a rapid transit line in a major city in Florida. There were 11 sales of urban land at unit prices in excess of$10,000 per acre,involving 425.085 acres for a total price of$43,202,764 or an average of$101,633 per acre. The remaining 46,743.602 acres brought an average of$1,818 per acre. CONTINUITY FACTOR One of the main objectives of this analysis is to determine the relationship of an appraiser's at the fence (ATF) estimated unit value to the sale unit price to 384 The Appraisal Journal, July 1985 r, M, �•,, M . TABLE 5 Characteristics of Rail Corridors Sold ant of total 46.34 Total acres in all corridors 47,209 (81) Total corridor acres sold 14.64 Noncorridor acres included in sales 47168 (81) 13.41 Miles of corridor sold 63 ( 7) 10.98 Total sale price 2,970 (82)a 6.10 Portion of sale price allocated to real estate $187, ,517 (82)° 6.10 Terms of sale $128,119595,250 (81) 2.43 all cash (81) 30.00 Width of corridors 100' 54 100'-200' 4 200' 2 60'-100' 2 160'-300' 1 100'-160' 1 .t of total 100'430' 1100,-210, 1 5.37 20'-200' 1 0.73 20'-120' 1 9.29 50' 1 3.41 2.20 ).00 a. Includes one sale of 59 miles for which no acreage was provided and thus was not included in acreage figures. b. Includes one sale for$2,950,0oo for which no acreage is given. determine what effect, if any, continuity has on sale prices. In 41 transactions . Since the independent appraiser's per acre unit value and per acre ATF unit value were aspects, furnished. In these 41 cases i of the The range in ATF unit value to saleswas rice The median ratio was P .18 0 3.73 1 20 sales had ratios below '� 0000 21 sales had ratios of 1' it price The ratios above 1.00 ranged from 1.0 . above 1.055 t i50 for to 3. 3.73 Two of the sales whose ATF/sale price ratios were below 1 (0.96 and 0.873) •e were included in the total sale price a very substantial amount of nonreal estate. "En- 25.085 gineering" succeeded in getting a major portion of the price a ed e. The real estate either to avoid showing a loss ort minimize loss for that departmenflocat to tnThe amount. remaining was allocated to real estate and was not representative of the corridor price. This may be the case with other sales with ratios below 1.00, be estate.to cause in many,sales only a small portion of the price was allocated to real estate. i of an In most sales with ratios above 1, however, the full sale price applied to real estate and none to nonreal estate. -dy 1985 zoLL:Rail Corridor Sales 385 y � ' HIGHEST AND BEST USE It is incumbent on the appraiser to determine the highest and best use of the sub- ject corridor. Continued rail use may or may not be one of the potential uses as a corridor. There are many others including, but not limited to, highways, trans- mission of electricity, gas lines, oil pipe lines, coal slurry lines, fiber optic cables, telephone wire lines, and recreational paths. If no demand for use requiring continuity exists, then the most logical use is tied in with that of the adjoining property, but such use might bring only liquida- tion prices. PROCEDURES IN APPRAISING RAIL CORRIDORS The railroad should supply the appraiser with engineering valuation maps that show each parcel as acquired, and its area. The corridor involved should be outlined, say, in red, and each parcel to which the railroad has good title shown in another color. Presumably the remaining parcels are easements acquired by condemnation, railroad deed,or adverse possession,and which are subject to reversion if no longer used for rail purposes. Next an appraiser should ascertain the nature of the assignment. For example, an appraiser may be asked to estimate the market value of only the fee owned par- cels with allowance for time and the administrative costs of liquidation. He or she may also be asked to estimate the value of the entire right-of-way for use as a cor- ridor. The work papers will include a tabulation of all parcels showing the acreage of each, and distinguishing the fee owned parcels from those subject to revision. The high-level car inspection will permit an appraiser to record on the valua- tion maps the nature of the adjoining land use, terrain, hills, swampland, wood- lands, urban uses, pastures, and croplands. A parcelization of the right-of-way can now be made grouping subject parcels that are adjoined by similar land. Sales that can be used for comparison and computation of ATF unit prices must be obtained and analyzed. After ATF unit prices have been established for each parcel, an estimate of their ATF values can be made. Net liquidation value is less than ATF price. Thus an appraiser will determine the ratio of net liquidation prices to ATF prices in other similar cases. These may range from 30% to 75% of ATF unit prices, requiring a judgment by the appraiser on the appropriate ratio applicable to the subject. Multiplying the ATF value esti- mate by the appropriate ratio indicates a probable price that can be obtained. This price must then be discounted to reflect the appraiser's judgment of the adminis- trative costs and the time required for liquidation. There may also be parcels that the appraiser believes will not be sold and must be abandoned. In estimating "corridor value" the appraiser multiplies the ATF value estimate by the figure representing the appropriate enhancement factor.This factor is deter- mined by comparing known corridor sale prices to their ATF value estimates and using the factor most representative of similar corridors. There is no discount for time or extensive administrative costs since a sale of the entire right-of-way is projected within a reasonable time. 386 The Appraisal Journal, July 1985_ CONCLUSIONS sub- A review of the foregoing and its supporting data shoes that the seller's motives es as were primarily to liquidate unnecessary abandoned corridors at the best possible rans- price. Railroad operating departments have been willing to see excess railroad land .bles, sold or otherwise used to the maximum only since 1950, though such land had no apparent rail operation usefulness. The benefits of doing so are becoming more ise is and more apparent and there will probably be more marketing of rail corridor land uida- and more need for appraisals. Government bodies will continue to be the largest number of purchasers, par- ticularly given the present state of the economy. Sale unit prices will continue to reflect potential use value, or the lack of it. show Unit prices will vary widely, depending on location, potential use, and possi- ined, ble cost of a substitute site. ether When a need for a corridor exists, a reasonable ATF/price ratio will vary from tion, 1.10 to 2.00 depending on the extent of the need and the cost of substitution. The mger upper range of this ratio may be higher in special urban situations. Where need for a corridor does not exist, the ATFiprice ratio will vary some- nple, what up or down from 0.50. par- When abandonment is sought the upper limit of value will be set by the ICC r she definition of market value which will be the net liquidation value of only those cor- parcels of the right-of-way to which the railroad has good title. This conclusion -cage could be substantially modified if some railroad successfully contests the ICC rul- sion. ing in the C&NW-GLA case. alua- ,00d- i can must each mine may aiser esti- This finis- ;that mate ,eter- ; and it for ay is 1985 ZOLL:Rail Corridor Sales 387 [Click here and type return address and phone and fax numbers] City of Faxi To: Joe Williams From: Ken Garmann Fax: 360-458-8301 Pages: 3 total Phone: 360-458-0834 Date: 02/08/99 Re: BNSF Railway Co. CC: John Thompson ❑ Urgent P For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Attached for your review is our second letter to the BNSF Railway Co.. Charlie Burnham and Steve Day have given their comments which have been incorporated into this letter. I would like to mail by Friday of this week so please let me know if you have any concerns. Thank you '' February 2, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 O Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 S; RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for returning my phone call January 7th of this year, regarding the BNSF "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview. As I understand our conversation regarding our letter to Mr. Jerry Johnson, the BNSF is not interested in conveying the "Prairie Line" to the City of Yelm, at this time. Specificall as outlined in our letter: The BNSF will not grant a"first right of refusal" for the right of way improver,ents or traffic on the"Nisqually Line" as this may become part of the oute south ®f Tacoma. U • The BNSF will not grant interchange rights at the Tacoma Yard due to the tential of conflicts with existing labor agreements. po L �ll� ��s�— � AVS 5'bp� S!v6 5 The BNSF will not grant, nor create any short line operations between Roy and Lakeview includ&gFt. Lewis traffic, Roy traffic nor Wilcox traffic at this time. AJV�rF will not allow any interchange at Roy from the ' lm to ®y seg l S (�L' ILL ill he BIMF will consider the transfer of the Yelm to Re segment to the City th ne r future m �,r�➢ 'V v sx1o)-cc Q .. Q '+ Naturally, we are disappointed that the BN SF i not more receptive to our proposal. The n. n lvement and efforts put forth to develop and fund our plan have been �k- nz A4-C� 'z7Ttl 'L-fS enormous, and the sense of community pride in this project has had significant local and regional support as well. We are also disappointed that we did not receive a reply from Mr. Johnson, as at our June 26"' meeting he seemed receptive to the idea of developing a"short line" from Yelm to Lakeview. It was this seed that encouraged the Cities of Yelm and Roy, the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in both communities to expend substantial time and energy pursuing this idea. Based on this encouragement from Mr. Johnson we have all carefully developed what we view as a practical a meaningful multi-community consensus on strategies to both preserve current rail use and expand future service over the"Prairie Line". In fact, as we stated � ur original letter, it is our strong desire to dramatically increase the traffic on th 'hral i the BNSF to enjoy additional u / revenues without increased cost. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit local rail users and meet our "Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. We request the BNSF reconsider its position on the development of the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview as a short line and work with the City of Yelm to realize this goal. It should be apparent that Mr. Johnson's initial encouragement created broad community support and positive hope for BNSF's partnership in fostering our community's economic growth. It would be most unfortunate to see all this positive community effort come to an untimely and unfortunate conclusion. Perhaps it would be beneficial for a representative of the BNSF to meet with our group to discuss these issues and explore avenues available to make the Prairie Line a reality for the City of Yelm. We await your favorable reply. Please direct your correspondence to my attention. If you have any questions, feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499. Sincerely, ; City of Yelm — Q, rv� i f Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO Jerry Johnson, BNSF 2 FEB-07-1999 15 42 ��V� P.01 BETTS PA,TTERSON &MINES, P.S. 800 Financial Center 1215 Nnirth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206343-7053 I'honr: 20h-292-9988 FAX COVER SMSET TO: Ken Carmann FAX NO. : (360) 458-4348 OF: City of Yelm FROM: Stephen L. Day OUR FILE: 57820001 RE: BNSF response & possible legal remedies NO. OF PAGES (INCL. THIS PAGE) : 5 DATE: 2/699 Please call (206)292-9988 (Ext. 557) if you do not receive any of these pages or if there is a problem. I PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY: (_) i' NOTE: Notes and federal statutes, attached. I THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARU HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (206) 292-9988, AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. FEB-07-1999 15:42 - P.02 Ren, I think the letter is good conceptually. I have the following suggestions which are aimed merely at further emphasizing BNSF's role in encouraging the process. I will not be offended if you think we are overplaying that card. You might also want to put your offer in the context of the earlier effort to end-run the City on abandonment/sale, and that their promises and encouragement were made .in that context. Page 2. 2nd paragraph: It was this seed that encouraged the Cities of Yelm and Roy, the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in both communities to expend substantial time and energy pursuing this idea. Based upon this encouragement from Mr. Johnson we have all carefully developed what we view as a practical a meaningful multicommunity consensus on strategies to both preserve current rail use and expand future service over the "Prairie Line. " amore the 5th paragraph, add: It should be apparent that Mr. Johnson's initial encouragement created broad community support and positive hope for BNSF's partnership in fostering our community's economic growth. It would be most unfortunate to see all this positive community effort come to an untimely and unfortunate conclusion. By the way. . . if you pick up the Roy to Yelm portion now and we develop traffic, there are legal remedies we and the shippers can use to force interchange access at Roy. For instance, see 49 U.S.C. SS 10742, 10705, 11102, 11103. The Surface Transportation Board recently addressed these rail access issues and adopted regulations to carry out rail access requirements. 990370008/020699/1533/ FEB-07-1999 15:43 P.O3 ICC Termination Act of 199,. Public Law 104-88 (B) Before OcWber 1,1997,the National Grain Car delivering of passengers and property to and from,its respective Council and the Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council line and a connecting fine of another rail carrier or of a water shall make recommendations to Congress on whether to extend carrier providing transportation subject to chapter 137. the effectiveness of or otherwise modify this subsection. Sec.10743.Liability for payment of rates SUBCHAPTER If—SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES (a) (1).Liabuity for payment of rates for transportation for a shipment of property by a shipper or consignor to a consignee Sec,10721.Government traffic other than the shipper or consignor;is determined under this sub- section when the transportation is provided by a rail carrier under A rail carrier providing transportation or service for the United this part. When the shipper or consignor instructs the rail carrier States Government may transport property or individuals for the transporting the property to deliver it to a consignee that is an United States Government without charge or at a rate reduced agent only,not having beneficial We W the property,the con- from the applicable commercial rate. Section 3709 of the signee is liable for rates billed at the time of delivery for which the Revised Statutes(41 U_S.C.5)does not apply when transporta- consignee is otherwise Gable,but notfor additional rates that may tion for the United States Government can be obtained from a rail be found to be due after delivery if the consignee gives written carrier lawfully operating in the area where the transportation notice to the delivering carrier before delivery of the property would be provided. (A) of the agency and absence of beneficial title;and Sec.10722.Car utilization (B) of ilea name and address of the beneficial owner of the property if it is reconsigned or diverted to a place other In order to encourage more efficient use of freight cars,not- than the place specified in the odgimi bill of lading_ withstanding any other provision of this part,rail earners shall be (2) When the consignee is liable onty for rates billed at permitted to establish premium charges for special services or the time of delivery under paragraph(1)of this subsection,the special levels of services not otherwise applicable to the move- shipper or consignor,or,9 the property is reconsigned or ment. The Board shall facilitate development of such charges so diverted,the beneficial owner,is liable for those additional rates as to increase the utilization of equipment. regardless of the bill of lading or contract under which the prop- erty was transported. The beneficial owner is liable for aG rates SUBCHAPTER III—LIMITATIONS when the property is reconsigned or diverted by an agent but is refused or abandoned at its ultimate destination if the agent gave the rail carrier in the reconsignment or diversion order a notice of See. 10741. Prohibitions against discrimination by agency and the name and address of the beneficial owner. A fail carriers consignee giving the rail carder,,and a reconsignor or diverter a 1 A rail carrier providing transportation of service giving a rail carrier,erroneous information about the identity of the ( ) ( ) beneficial owner of the property is liable for the additional rates. subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may not subject a person,place,port,or type of traffic to unreasonable (b) Liability for payment Of rates forirarrsporhatianfor aship- discrimination. meat of pWrty by a shipper or consignor.named In the bio of (2) For purposes of this section,a rail camel engages in lading as consignee,is determined under this subsection when uthe transportation is provided by a rail comer underthis part unreasonable discrimination when it charges or receives from a when the shipper or consignor gives written notice,before person a different compensation for a service rendered,or to be delivery of the property,to the line-haul rail carder that is to make rendered,in transportation the rail carrier may perform under this ultimate delivery_ part than it charges or receives from another person for perform- 1 to deliver the property to another party identified by Ing a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a ( ) like Idnd of traffic under substantially similar circumstances. the shipper or consNnor as the beneficial owner of the property; and (b) This section shall not apply to— 1) contracts described in section 10709 of this title; �) that delivery�to be made to that party on payment ( of all applicable transportation rates;that party is Cubic forthe (2) rail rates applicable to different routes;or rates billed at the time of delivery and for additional rates that may (3) discrimination against the traffic of another carrier be found to be due after delivery if that party does not pay the providing transportation by any made. hates required to be paid under paragraph(2)of this subsection on delivery. However,9 the party gives written notice to the (c) Differences between rates,classifications,rules,and prac- delivering rail carrier before delivery that the party is not the bene- tees of rail carriers do not constitute a violation of this section 9 ficial owner of the property and gives the rail carrier the name and such differences result from different services provided by rail address of the beneficial owner,then the party is not Gable for carriers. those additional rates- A shipper,consignor,or party to im hom delivery is made that gives the delivering rail carrier erroneous rSec,i 0742. Facilities for interctiange of traffic information about the identity of the beneficial owner,is liable for - the additional rates regardless of the bill of lading or contract A rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction under which the property was transported. This subsection does of the Board under this part shall provide reasonable,proper,and equal facilities that are within its power to provide forthe inter- apply m a prepaid shipment of property_ change of traffic between,and for the receiving,forwarding,and 10 FEB-07-1999 15:43 P.04 [Cc Terllninatic A of 1995 Public Law 104-88 sec. 10704.Authority and criteria: rates,classifica- S__e_c..107051Authority: through routes,joint classifi- tions,rules,and practices prescribed by cations, rates,and divisions prescribed Board by Board y Y (a) (1) when the Board,after a fail hearing,decides that a (a) (1) The Board may,and shall when it considers it desir- rate charged or collected by a rail carder for transportation subject able in the public interest,prescribe tt mgh mutes,joint classifi- to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part,or that a cations,joint rates,the division at joint rates,and The conditions classification,rule,or practice of that Carrier,does or will Violate under which those routes must be operated,for a rad carver pro- this part,the Hoard may prescribe the maximum rate,classifica- viding transportation subjectto the jurisdiction of the Board under tion,rule,or practice to be followed" The Board may order the this part r:,�;~;;• carrier to stop the violation_ When a rate,classirmabon,rule,or (2) The Board may require a rail canierlo include in a ' . practice is prescribed under this subsection,the affected carrier through route substantially less than the entire length of its rail- may not publish,charge,or collect a different rate and shag adopt .;,. road and any intermediate railroad operated with it under common the classification and observe the rule or practice prescribed by management or control•d that intermediate railroad Iles between the Board. the terminals of the through route only when-- s i (2) The Board shall maintain and revise as necessary (A) required under section 10741,10742,or 11102 standards and procedures for establishing revenue levels for rail of this titre: . carriers providing transportation subject to its jurisdiction under 8 inclusion of those lines would make the through this part that are adequate,under honest,economical,and..effi- ( dent management 1A cover total operating expenses,including route unreasonably long when compared with a practicable atter- depreciation and obsolescence,plus a reasonable and economic native through route f zat could he established;or profit or return(or both)an capital employed in the business_ The (C) the Board decides that the proposed through Board shall make an adequate and continuing effort to assist those route is needed to provide adequate,and more efficient or eco- carriers in attaining revenue levels prescribed underthis para- nomic,transportation_ The Board shall give reasonable prefer- .. r..•.: 5fy,. graph. Revenue levels established under this paragraph should— ence,subject to this subsection,to the rail carrier originating the %• `._ (A) provide a flow of net income plus depreciation traffic when prescribing through routes. adequate to support prudent capital outlays,assure the repayment (b) The Board shag prescribe the division of joint rates to be of a reasonable levet of debt,permitthe raising of needed equity received by a rail carrier providing transportation subject to its capital,and cover the effects of inflation;and jurisdiction under this part when it decides that a division of joint {B) attract and retain capital in amounts adequate to rates established by the participating carriers under section 10703 of this title or under a decision of the Board under sub- sedan(a)of this section,does or will violate section 10701 of (3) on the basis of the standards and procedures this bile_ described in paragraph(2),the Board shag annually determine which rail carriers are earning adequate revenues. (c) it a division of a joint rate prescribed under a decision of the Board is later found to violate section 10701 of This title,the (b)The Board may begin a proceeding under this section only Board may decide what division would have been reasonable and on complaint A complaint under subsection(a)of this section order adjustment to be made retroactive to the date the complaint must he made under section 11701 of this titre,but fire proceed- was filed,the date the order for an investigation was made,or a ing may also be In extension of a complaint pending before the later date that the Board decides is justified. The Board may Board, make a decision under this subsection effective as part of its r. (c) in a proceeding to challenge the reasonableness of a rate, original decision. the Board shall make its determination as to the reasonableness of the challenged rate— Sec.10708,Rate agreements: exemption from (1) within 9 months after the close of the administrative antitrust laws record U the determination is based upon a stand-alone cost (a) (1) In this subsection-- presentation;or (2) within 6 months after the close of the administrative {A) the tent affiliate,means a person controlling, record if the detemtinatlon is based upon the methodology controlled by,or under common control or ownership with adopted by the Board pursuant to section 10701(d)(3). another person and ownership,refers to equity holdings in a business entity of at least 5 percent; (d) Within 9 months after the effective date of the IGC Termina- (B) the term"single-line rate refers to a rate or tion Act of 1995,the Board shall establish procedures to ensure allowance proposed by a single rail carrier that is applicable only j expeditious handling of challenges to the reasonableness of rail- road rates. The procedures shall include approptiate measures for over its tine and for which the transportation(exclusive of termi- nal services by switching,drayage or other termind carriers or avoiding delay in the discovery and evidentiary phases of such agenefes)can be provided by that carrier:and proceedings and exemption or revocation proceedings,Including appropriate sanctions for such delay;and for ensuring prompt (C) the term"practicably participates in the move- e` .:f. .' disposition of motions and interlocutory administrative appeals. mend"shall have such meaning as the Board shall by regulation prescribe. (2) (A) A rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part that is a party to an �y. 6 FEB-07-1999 15:44 P.05 A Termination Act of 1995 PlII1I1C I,oW 104-$8 � have expired after written or electrcmnic notice is provided to any (2) The Board may require reciprocal Switching agree- person who,within the previous 12 Months— m�ents entered into by rail carriers pursuant 10 this subsection to (1) has requested such rates or terns under sub- contain provisions for the protection of the interests of employees affected thereby. section(b);or (d)The Board shall complete any proceeding under sub- (2) has made arrangements with the carrier for a ship- section(a)or(b)within 180 days after the filing of the request for cant that would be subject to such increased rates or changed relief. terms. r (d) With respect to transportation of agricultural products,in Sec,11103.Switch_connections and tracks addition to the requirements of subsections(a),(b),and(c),a rail –- - - carder shall publish,make available,and retain for public irspec- 4 (a) on application of the owner of a lateral branch line of rail- tion its common carrier rates,schedules of rates,and other ser- road,or of a shipper tendering interstate traffic for transportation, vice terms,and any proposed and actual changes to such rates a rag carrier providing transportation muW tD the jurisdiction of and service terms. Fit purposes of this subsection,agricultural the Board under this part;shall Construct maintain,and operate, products shall include grain as defined in section 9 of the United on reasonable conditions,a Switch connection to conneet that states Grain Standards Act(7 U.S.C.75)and all products thereof, branch tine or private side track with its railroad and shall furnish and fertilizer_ cars to move that traffic m the best of its ability without discrimi- (e) Arai{carrier shall provide transportation it service innation in favor of or against the shipper when the connection— accordance with the rates and service terms,and any changes (1) is reasonably practicable; thereto,as published or otherwise made available under sub- (2) can be made safely;and section(b),(c),or(d). (3) will furnish Sufficient business to justify its construc- I (f) The Board shail,by regulation,establish rules to imple- ton and maintenance. Merit this section. The regulations shall provide for immediate (b) If a rail carrier fails to install and operate a switch connec- disclosure and dissemination of rates and service tents,Mud- tion after application is made under subsection(a)of this section, ing classifications,rules,and practices,and their effective dates. the owner of the lateral branch fine of railroad or the shipper may Final regulations shall be adopted by the Board not later than 180 file a complaint with the Board under section 11701 of this title, days after the effective date of the IN Termination Act of 1995. The Board shall investigate the complaint and decide the safety, – practicability,justification,and compensation to be paid for the "Sec.11 f02.Use at teirn_inal facilities connection. The Board may direct the fait carrier to comply with (a) The Board may require terminal facilities,including main- subsection(a)of this section only after a full hearing. line tracks for a reasonable distance Outside of a terminal,owned by a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction SUBCHAPTER II-•—CAR SERVICE of the Board under this part,to be used by another rail carrier if the Board fins that use to be practicable and in the public interest without substantially impairing the ability of the all carrier owning Sec.11121.Criteria the facilities or entitled to use the facilities to handle its own (a} (1) A rat►carrier providing transportation subject to the business. The rail carriers are responsible for establishing the jurisdiction of the Board under this part shall furnish safe and conditions and compensation for use of the facilities.However,if adequate Cat service and under tush,observe,and enforce.reason- thetail Carriers Cannot agree,the Board may,establish connciple conorrs able rules and practices on car service. The Board may require a and compensation for use of the facilities under the principle Con- rail carrier to provide facilities and equlpmerit that are reasonably trolling compensation in condemnation proceedings. The com- necessary to furnish safe and adequate car service if the Board pensation sfia11 be paid or adequately secured before a rail carrier decides that the rail carrier has materially failed to furnish that may begin to use the facilities of another rail carrier under this service. The Board may begin a proceeding under this paragraph section. when an interested person files an application with it The Board (b) A rail carrier whose terminal facilities are required to be may act only after a hearing on the record and an affirmative used by another rail carrier under this section is entitled to finding,based on the evidence presented.that= recover damages from the other rail carrier for injuries sustained (A) providing the facilities or equipmerd will not as the result of compliance with the requirement or for compen- materially and adversely affect the ability of the rail carrier m sation for the use,or both as appropriate,in a civil action,0 it is provide safe and adequate transportation; not satisfied with the conditions for use of the faCil"ities or if the B the amount spent for the facilities or equipment amount of the compensation is not paid promptly including a return equal to the rail carrier's current cost of capital, (c) (1) The Board may require rail carriers to enter into recip- wig be recovered;and rocal switching agreements,where it finds such agreements to be providing the facifRies or equipment will not i practicable and in the public interest or where such agreements ( ) ars necessary to provide competitive rail service. The rail carriers impair the ability of the rail carrier to attract adequate capital- entering into such an agreement shall establish the conditions and (2) The Board may require a rail carrier to file its car compensation applicabie to such agreement,but if the rail car- service rules with the Board. riers cannot agree upon such conditions and compensation within a reasonable period of time,the Board may establish such condi- tions and compensation. i TOTAL P.05 February 2, 1999 Mr. Richard A. Batie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 i RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Batie, Thank you for returning my phone call January 71h of this year, regarding the BNSF "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview. As I understand our conversation regarding our letter to Mr. Jerry Johnson, the BNSF is not interested in conveying the"Prairie Line" to the City of Yelm, at this time. Specifically as outlined in our letter: • The BNSF will not grant a"first right of refusal" for the right of way improvements or traffic on the"Nisqually Line" as this may become part of the Amtrak route south of Tacoma. • The BNSF will not grant interchange rights at the Tacoma Yard due to the potential of conflicts with existing labor agreements. • The BNSF will not grant, nor create any short line operations between Roy and Lakeview including Ft. Lewis traffic, Roy traffic nor Wilcox traffic at this time. Additionally, the BNSF will not allow any interchange at Roy from the Yelm to Roy segment. • The BNSF will consider the transfer of the Yelm to Roy segment to the City in the near future. Naturally, we are disappointed that the BNSF is not more receptive to our proposal. The community involvement and efforts put forth to develop and fund our plan have been 1 enormous, and the sense of community pride in this project has had significant local and regional support as well. We are also disappointed that we did not receive a reply from Mr. Johnson, as at our June 26t" meeting he seemed receptive to the idea of developing a"short line" from Yelm to Lakeview. It was this seed that encouraged the Cities of Yelm and Roy, the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in both communities to expend substantial time and energy pursuing this idea. Based on this encouragement from Mr. Johnson we have all carefully developed what we view as a practical a meaningful multi-community consensus on strategies to both preserve current rail use and expand future service over the"Prairie Line". In fact, as we stated in our original letter, it is our strong desire to dramatically increase the traffic on this line, allowing the BNSF to enjoy additional revenues without increased cost. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit local rail users and meet our "Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. We request the BNSF reconsider its position on the development of the "Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview as a short line and work with the City of Yelm to realize this goal. It should be apparent that Mr. Johnson's initial encouragement created broad community support and positive hope for BNSF's partnership in fostering our community's economic growth. It would be most unfortunate to see all this positive community effort come to an untimely and unfortunate conclusion. Perhaps it would be beneficial for a representative of the BNSF to meet with our group to discuss these issues and explore avenues available to make the Prairie Line a reality for the City of Yelm. We await your favorable reply. Please direct your correspondence to my attention. If you have any questions, feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garmann Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO Jerry Johnson, BNSF 2 ' f 1 City of Yelm a n+ 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P.O. Box 479 ,. WASHINGTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 "The Prairie Line" Acknowledgement of Project Support Yelm to Lakeview / BNSF v Slade Gorton United States Senate fatty Murray United States Senate ,—Adam Smith United States House of Representatives —`Marilyn Rasmussen State Senator 2nd Legislative District -Karen Fraser _State Senator 22nd Legislative District Cathy Wolfe State Representative 22nd District Sandra Romero State Representative 22nd District Dick Nichols Thurston County Commissioner 'Diane Wilson Thurston County Commissioner Diane Oberquill Thurston County Commissioner Kathryn M. Wolf Mayor, City of Yelm —Joel Derefield Mayor, City of Roy Dennis Matson EDC of Thurston County —Nick Handy Port of Olympia ------Harold Robertson Thurston Regional Planning 'Council 'Cecelia Jenkins Executive Director, Yelm Chamber of Commerce games H. Slakey Director, WSDOT-Rail 98bnsf10 m October 22, 1998 Mr. Ken Garman Public Works Director City of Yelm P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 RE: Burlington Northern Santa Fe - Yelm to Lakeview acquisition Dear Mr. Garman: Wilcox Farms, Inc. is extremely supportive of the work you have done as the lead agency in acquiring the BNSF line from Yehn to Lakeview. As a user of services on this line (approximately 500 cars per year), we are concerned about future service and feel the City, as owner, will ensure long-range quality customer service. This letter formally gives the City of Yelm permission to communicate.to the BNSF that Wilcox Farms agrees with the plans for the City to acquire the short line railroad. We look forward to supporting the City both financially and with my involvement in the future. Sincerely, Barrie Wilcox WILCOX FARMS, INC. 40400 Harts Lake Valley Rd. S., Roy,WA 98580 (360) 458-7774 FAX (360) 458-6950 ' _ \ . . I J . _ 1 ,. _ �: } r YEL1VI�RAiRYE.DEVELOPMEI�TT COMPANY. . December'1I.:,4 998: - - _ . ' - The Honorable Kat M, Wolf;Mayor;:. ' City..of elim . l05 Ye1m.AvI.e East .1 IP 0.'.Box,4.79 Yelin,1. WA.-:98597 - ' t 't - - '- . .Re Prairie Line Proposal to Burlington:Northern Santa Fe'Railway .: . Dear.Mayor Wolf; . We=have conferred'w thTien Garmann.and reviewed.in detail-.the'proposal letter being _sent to Jerry'Johnson at-the Burlington Northern Santa Fe 1 This letter is to state that.we.are in full agreement with all aspects of'the proposal and you . - ,:haveAr complete;support regarding this matter 1 I *- . .. •. ' We stand ready and willing to'provide our.polrtical contacts and otherresources'to41isure ;;the'successful corn letion of the ci 's ob ective P ty J Sincerely, , . hn Gibbs Thompson ., _ _ ' 1. . 4A 1. ; ' _ 11 ,;, -� /' .� -: •.:. J. 1 4s 7�1 Prairie Park Lane . 1'O Box 5210 elt),;N.aslungton,9$597 j �ti Phone 360'458 7501 Eax 360.458 8501'° r Pea Chamber of Comp PO Box 444 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-6608 December 1, 1998 The Honorable K. Wolf Mayor The City of Yelm, Wa 105 Yelm Ave W Yelm, Wa 98597 RE: Prairie Line Dear Mayor Wolf, As the President of the Yelm Area Chamber of Commerce and a long time Yelm resident, I would like to express my strong support for the work that has been done to secure the Yelm to Lakewood rail service for the future of our community. The Yelm Area Chamber of Commerce Board and their Economic Development Committee have participated in and followed with great interest this project since its beginning in December of 1997. We are absolutely committed to this course of action, and feel that the rail service link is the lynchpin in attracting new.business to the Yelm area. Please convey to Burlington Northern Santa Fe the Chambers thanks and sincere appreciation for their attention, .and the obvious good faith they have displayed to us over the last year. I look forward to commenting at length on the success of this project in the monthly Chamber insert very soon. Sincerely, _ G / ✓� G J Williams resident Yelm Area Chamber of Commerce Y MILES�� �- SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY P.O. BOX 130 AUBURN, WA 98071 CONCRETE GRAVEL • CRUSHED ROCK SAND PLANTSIN AUBURN TACOMA ROY SHELTON FAX 833-3700 922-9116 843-1787 (360)426-3344 833-3746 December 3, 1998 Mr.Ken Gamann Public Works Director City of Yelm P.O.Box 479 Yelm,WA 98597 RE: Burlington Northem/Santa f e—Yelm to Lakeview acquisition Dear Mr. Garmann, Miles Sand and Gravel Company is extremely supportive of the work you have done as the lead agency in acquiring the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe rail line from Lakeview to Yelm. Over the past ten years our company has tried to use this spur line to rail gravel into the Tacoma area We are very interested in the future of the line and would very much like to use the line to rail our gra TI-ds letter formally gives the City of Yelm permission to communicate to the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe that Miles Sand and Gravel Company agrees with the plans for the City to acquire the spur track from Lakeview to Yelm. We look forward to supporting the City in this endeavor,and I would like to actively participate in the process. Sincerely, MILES SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY Lisa Kittilsby 1 n_n^—pR n 1 1 1 Pia Pn 1 - ,+ 1 t "THE PRAIRIE LINE" YELM TO LAKMEW orlEtla � m Andove �0�4 Agyn �occ 6 r� wOc �c,ApQ �y`k,4 d" c Henrys �p Auburn Rovensdae Palm.W BI�k Otamona Say Shore TACOMA ife . lerin9®r Ion r k_ Sumner vel to West HKlsd locoom Tomo Puyallu Mee er tr v KEVIE Mtdtand erton AllChord Tag cMcMiCn upont• ft1 tponaway OLYMPUS ux,rst Fredrickson Fllavkall O _;� baa Craf}ahrift a ' Ohm Tumwoter W St.Clair to• Kyro ROY . eOkr Belmore Capp to Olympia Kopowsin E. YELM v McKenna r<: Plum �`� Cloy City Ucytown Western JC+ e Lltfilerock e epale o® Rainier Cote Tenmo �e'k vain e� h 0 ot�t- F°' e`16eQ iF Notional RWWash aicn Centralia Mineral CHEwaus, � Otvlde G Napavine j Cutis orlon Winlock City ofYeim 'Branch One oder TMY¢e RUL uue OWER PAL LUO Mqua 0 6 10 IN= Castle Rook 0 6 10. 15IWAI AGREEMENT ORGANIZATIONS: CITY OF YELM 105 YELM AVENUE WEST P.O. BOX 479 YELM, WA 98597 ACTUAL COST Description of Work Not to exceed $ 11,500 RAIL LINE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION PROJECT FROM LAKEWOOD TO YELM AGREEMENT NUMBER RR-00235 This Agreement is made and entered into this 01pt day of rjAH(4A9.X, 1999 between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, hereinafter called the"STATE" and the City of Yelm, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY". WHEREAS, the Legislature has found that freight rail systems are important elements of the STATE's multimodal transportation system and that Washington's economy relies heavily upon the freight rail system to ensure movement of the STATE's agricultural, chemical, and natural resource products to local, national, and international markets; and WHEREAS, The Legislature has recognized that the STATE, counties, local communities, railroads, labor and shippers all benefit from continuation of essential rail service and that abandonment of rail lines and rail freight service and the resultant motor vehicle freight traffic increases the burden on state highways and county roads; and WHEREAS, the Legislature has found that in many cases, the cost of upgrading the roads exceeds the cost of maintaining rail freight service. Thus, the economy of the state will be best served by a policy of maintaining and encouraging a healthy rail freight system.by.creating a mechanism which keeps rail freight lines operating if the benefits of the service outweigh the cost; and WHEREAS, RCW 47.76.250 established the Essential Rail Assistance Account(ERAA) in the state treasury and permits the STATE to grant funds to railroads for.the purposes of acquiring, rebuilding, rehabilitating, or improving rail lines necessary to maintain essential rail service; and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to purchase and rehabilitate a 17 mile rail line from Lakewood to Yelm in Pierce and Thurston Counties known as the Lakeview Subdivision("RAILROAD"); and WHEREAS, the CITY requires funds to purchase the RAILROAD and undertake track rehabilitation work to preserve essential freight rail service from Lakewood to Yelm ; and WHEREAS, the STATE and CITY desire to preserve essential freight rail service on the RAILROAD; and WHEREAS, the CITY has secured $340,000 federal grant to acquire and rehabilitate the RAILROAD; and WHEREAS, the $340,000 federal grant the CITY has secured requires a $60,000 local matching contribution; and WHEREAS, the CITY will use the STATE funds to preserve essential freight rail service to the Fort Lewis Army Base and communities and shippers of Roy and Yelm; and WHEREAS, the RAILROAD provides essential rail service to the Fort Lewis Army Base and shippers of Roy and Yelm;for the transportation of up to 1,500 rail carloads of freight and goods annually; and WHEREAS, the termination of service on the RAILROAD will lead to its abandonment, resulting in up to. 9,000 additional truck trips (1,500 carloads x 3 truckloads/carload x 2 for the return trip) on state and local roads and consequent maintenance and rehabilitation cost increases to taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the CITY does not have adequate resources or income to contribute the entire $60,000 needed to secure the $340,000 federal grant; and WHEREAS, the CITY has requested that the STATE contribute up to $11,500 towards the $60,000 local matching contribution required to secure the $340,000 federal.grant; and WHEREAS, state funds are available in accordance with the provisions of ERAA to assist with the acquisition and rehabilitation of the line. NOW, THEREFORE, upon terms and conditions.contained in this Agreement, the CITY agrees to purchase and rehabilitate the RAILROAD as described in APPENDIX A; and the STATE agrees to grant funds to the CITY in accordance with the following terms and conditions: SECTION I. -- SCOPE This project shall consist of the acquisition and rehabilitation of the RAILROAD from Lakewood to Yelm. This acquisition and rehabilitation, which is necessary to preserve essential freight rail service to the Fort Lewis Army Base and the communities of Roy and Yelm consists of acquisition of the RAILROAD's trackage, bridges, structures and underlying real estate in addition to, crosstie replacement and other work necessary for the rehabilitation of the RAILROAD. RR-00235 2 The STATE agrees to grant a maximum of $11,500 to the CITY for the RAILROAD acquisition and labor, equipment, and materials necessary to rehabilitate the RAILROAD as identified in APPENDIX A. During the term of this Agreement, without reimbursement from the STATE, the CITY, at its own expense, shall remedy, without charge, all defects in the performance of the project, and will correct all faulty workmanship of the CITY and/or its contractors. Under the terms of this Agreement, track work will be performed to bring track into compliance with FRA Class 1 track -standards. The CITY shall afford the STATE the benefit, to the extent received by the CITY, of any discounts and other credits for goods and services purchased in the course of performing the project. The Acquisition and Rehabilitation under this Agreement shall be completed by no later than July 1, 2000. Upon completion of the project, a joint inspection of the repairs shall be made by the authorized representatives of each of the parties to determine that the work has been completed within the terms of this Agreement. If the repairs are not completed by July 1, 2000, the CITY and STATE agree that the expense for any additional repairs will borne solely by the CITY with no reimbursement required from the STATE. The STATE funds will be administered as follows: $ 11,500 ERAA(Y5) SECTION H. -- PAYMENTS TO THE CITY Prior to initiating any work for performance hereunder, the CITY shall provide the STATE with the proposed schedule for each item of work to be performed. The schedule shall be arranged in such a manner as to form a basis for comparison with monthly progress billings for work performed. In the event of a change in the method or time for performance of any work,the schedule shall be updated as to reflect the changed circumstances. The STATE agrees to grant the CITY$11,500 for the actual direct and related indirect costs, incurred by the CITY in the course of completing the Rail Line Acquisition and Rehabilitation under this Agreement. The CITY will secure the remaining funds for the Acquisition and Rehabilitation. The CITY may submit monthly invoices detailing work completed. The STATE will reimburse the CITY for 100 percent of the actual cost of approved repairs up to a maximum of$11,500. The STATE shall make periodic payments to the CITY for costs incurred under this Agreement. Payment by the STATE shall not relieve the CITY of any obligation to make good any defective work or material at FRA Class 1 track standards upon project completion. The CITY shall receive reimbursement for actual cost of materials and their installation, less net salvage value of any material being replaced in carrying out the repairs. Labor, materials, or other project costs supplied by the CITY will only be reimbursed at actual cost without markup or profit. Contractors affiliated with or under common control with the;CITY will not be used in any manner on this project. RR-00235 3 Any materials salvaged under this project will be stockpiled, inventoried, sold, and the proceeds credited to the project. Documentation shall include amounts salvaged, amount sold, and amount collected. Reimbursement for CITY rented or leased equipment will be based on actual cost to the railroad as supported by audit. Reimbursement for CITY owned equipment will be based on rates as established in the 1999 Blue Book for Railroad Equipment, published by Machinery Information Division of Primedia Information Inc. The CITY shall conform with all provisions of 48 CFR 31 regarding accounting conventions. Reimbursement for overhead under this Agreement will be limited to actual costs not to exceed a maximum of 165% of bare labor costs. Reimbursement for travel, subsistence,and lodging expenses will not be eligible under this Agreement unless specifically approved by the STATE. Air or train travel when approved, will only be reimbursed to economy class levels unless y otherwise approved by the STATE. The CITY shall comply with the rules and regulations regarding travel costs in accordance with the STATE Department of Transportation Directive D 13-50 and revisions thereto. The billing for non-salary cost, directly identifiable with the project, shall be an itemized listing of the charges supported by copies of the original bills, invoices, expense accounts and miscellaneous supporting data retained by the CITY. Copies of the original supporting documents shall be supplied to the STATE upon request. All above charges must be essential to the work conducted under this agreement. Crew travel time between normal workstation and jobsites will not be considered travel under this restriction. The STATE will authorize the CITY in writing to begin the rehabilitation work. The STATE may authorize all or parts of the work as herein described. Reimbursement will be limited to those parts authorized. SECTION III. -- PROGRESS PAYMENT The CITY may forward progress billings, for acquisition and rehabilitation work performed, to the STATE. The STATE shall make payments for acquisition and eligible repair work completed and materials installed during the previous month. Progress billings will be submitted by the CITY no more frequently than once per month. The STATE will reimburse the CITY for the billed amount within thirty (30) days of receipt of a properly completed progress billing. The payment of any estimate shall not relieve the CITY of any obligation to make good any defective work or material. The CITY shall receive reimbursement for actual cost of materials and their installation, less net salvage value of any material being replaced in carrying out the approved project. It is understood that the CITY may choose to subcontract all or portions of the work. RR-00235 4 It is agreed that STATE payments pursuant to any CITY payment request will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any item and that required adjustments, if any, will be made at the time of final STATE audit. In the event that such final STATE audit indicates an overpayment of moneys to the CITY, the CITY agrees to refund the overpayment to the STATE within 60 days after being billed therefor. The STATE will authorize the CITY in writing to begin the rehabilitation work. Reimbursement Will be limited to costs incurred after such notice. SECTION IV. -- MATERIALS AND MEASUREMENT Payment of materials installed by the CITY will be based on supplier invoices. Payment for work completed under contract by a subcontractor of the CITY will be based on actual cost to the CITY with no markup for subcontracted work. All materials purchased for reimbursement under this agreement shall be purchased based on the. lowest competitive bid. Any work subcontracted for reimbursement under this agreement shall be assigned based on the lowest competitive bid. SECTION V. -- PROJECT EMPLOYMENT AND INSPECTION OF WORK The CITY shall employ all persons or contractors necessary to perform the project work, directly or indirectly, and agrees to manage, control, operate, construct, maintain, repair and renew, make repairs to said Rail Line. The STATE may place an Engineer and/or other inspection personnel on the work site during the term of this Agreement to monitor progress of the project and/or to :monitor adherence to the required provisions of this Agreement. The CITY shall make the site accessible to STATE inspection personnel. This may include providing transportation to remote, inaccessible work sites. The STATE will inspect progress at the work site as it deems appropriate. In the event that the CITY subcontracts to obtain material, equipment, and any work necessary to perform the rehabilitation, the CITY will be responsible for certifying that all work and materials are in compliance with Federal Railroad Administration standards for Class 1 track._ SECTION VI. -- SALE OR ABANDONMENT OF RAIL LINE The CITY is obligated upon any sale or disposition of the RAILROAD to include in the contract of sale or disposition: (a) Requirement of continuance of the project rail line as a common carrier rail line; and (b) Stipulation to repay in full immediately to the STATE, its' Share, as determined in accordance with Common Rule, 49 C.F.R. 18 for failure to comply with this continuance. RR-00235 5 SECTION VII.—CONTINGENT INTEREST The STATE will retain a contingent interest in the RAILROAD in accordance with RCW 47.76.250. The CITY may not use the RAILROAD as collateral, remove, track, bridges, or associated elements for salvage, or use it in any other manner subordinating the STATE's interest without permission from the STATE. SECTION VIII. -- MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS During the progress of the work, and for a period of not less than three years from the date of final payment to the CITY, records and accounts of the CITY are to be kept available for inspection and audit by repreyentatives of the STATE. Copies of the records shall be furnished to the STATE upon request and shall be maintained in accordance with accepted job cost accounting procedures as established in 48 CFR Part 31. All costs must be supported by actual invoices and canceled checks. The CITY agrees to comply with the audit requirements contained herein, and to impose the same requirement on any consultant, contractor, or subcontractor who may perform work funded by this Agreement. The CITY shall maintain the following until the expiration of three years after the date of the final audit of this Agreement- (a)Records that identify the sources and applications of funds for this Agreement and contain information pertaining to outlays; (b) Supporting source documents; (c) Any records required for the CITY to show compliance with Control of Material and Nondiscrimination Clauses section of this Agreement; (d) All documentation underlying the preparation of the financial reports; (e) Following notification of an amendment to state or federal regulations which takes effect during the period in which costs are allowable, any other records which are required by the notice; and (f) Any other records necessary to disclose fully the amount and disposition of the funds provided to the CITY under this Agreement and charged to the Project, supported by documents evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of the charges, the total cost of each undertaking for which the assistance was given or used, the amount of the costs of the undertaking supplied by other sources, and other books, records, and documents needed for a full and complete verification of the CITY's responsibilities and all payments and charges under this Agreement. RR-00235 6 In the event that any litigation, claim or audit is initiated prior to the expiration of said three year period, the records shall be retained until such litigation, claim or audit involving the records is complete. SECTION IX. -- REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES The following representations and warranties by the parties hereto shall be considered conditions precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. The CITY represents and warrants the following: (a) That it is a public corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington; (b) That the moneys the CITY will derive through this Agreement will be used solely for the project as defined in this Agreement; (c) That it has the full power and authority to enter into this Agreement, and to carry out the obligations which it has hereby undertaken; (d) That all corporate and other proceedings required to be taken by or on the part of the CITY to authorize its entrance into this Agreement, have been or will be duly taken; (e) That execution of this Agreement and the performance of the improvement hereunder will not violate any statute, rule, regulation, order, writ, injunction or decree of any Court, administrative agency or government body-, (D It is understood that the actual project costs under this agreement are based on preliminary estimates. It is the intent of the STATE to partially reimburse the CITY for its actual rehabilitation costs. It is further understood that unforeseen circumstances due to no fault of the CITY may cause the project cost to exceed the project estimate. It is therefore understood that if the total actual.project cost is greater than the project estimate and the STATE is unable or unwilling to amend this agreement,the CITY shall complete the project and assume the entire cost overrun; (g) That the CITY has not employed or retained any company or person to solicit or secure. this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, any fee, commission percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the STATE shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability; (h) That the CITY shall not engage, on full or part-time.basis, or other basis during the period of the Agreement, any professional or technical personnel who are, or have been, at any time during the period of the Agreement, in the employ of the STATE without written consent of the employer of such person; and RR-00235 7 (i) That the CITY shall not extend any loan, gratuity, or gift of money in any form whatsoever to any employee, agent, or officer of the STATE nor will the CITY rent or purchase any equipment or materials from any employee or officer of the STATE. Before final payment on this Agreement by the STATE, the CITY agrees to execute and furnish the STATE an affidavit certifying it has complied with this provision of the Agreement. SECTION X. -- MUTUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES The STATE and CITY mutually represent and warrant the following: (a) That this Agreement and Appendices hereto contain the entire Agreement of the parties; (b) That no term or provision in this Agreement may be changed, waived, discharged or terminated orally, but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom the ; enforcement of change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought; (c) That this Agreement shall in all respects be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. SECTION XI. -- TERM This Agreement shall become.effective upon the date of execution by the parties hereto. The agreement shall continue in full force for the useful life of the materials installed with STATE funds. SECTION XII. -- TERMINATION FOR FAULT Should either the STATE or the CITY substantially fail to perform their obligations under this Agreement, and continue in such default for a period of sixty (60) days; the party not in default shall have the right at their option, after first giving thirty (30) days written notice thereof by certified mail to the party(s) in default, and notwithstanding any waiver by the.party giving notice of any prior breach thereof, to terminate this Agreement. The exercise of_suc�'right shall not impair any other rights of the terminating party under this Agreement or any rights of action against the defaulting party for the recovery of damages. For purposes of this provision, a substantial failure to perform on the part of the CITY shall be deemed to include, but shall not be limited to, any action of the CITY which jeopardizes its ability to perform pursuant to this Agreement. SECTION XIII. -- ASSIGNMENT AND SUCCESSION Neither the STATE nor the CITY may assign or in any manner transfer either in whole or in part this Agreement or any right or privilege granted to it hereunder, nor permit any person or persons, company or companies to share in any such rights or privileges without the prior written consent RR-00235. 8 of the parties hereto obtained, except as otherwise herein provided. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to permit any other railway company or any other person, corporation, or association, directly or indirectly, to possess any right or privilege herein. SECTION XIV. -- FORCE MAJEURE It is further understood and agreed that neither the CITY nor the STATE, as the applicable case may be, shall be required to keep this Agreement in effect during the periods it is prevented from doing so by strikes, riots, civil commotion or other causes beyond said parties' control, or if the rail facilities or any portion thereof is made unserviceable by floods, high water or other damage by the elements, Acts of God or by acts of military aggression by third parties or governmental action. i - SECTION XV. -- NOTICES Any notice, request, consent, demand, report, statement or submission which is required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally to the respective party set forth below, or if mailed, sent by return receipt for certified United States mail, postage prepaid, to the respective parties at the addresses set forth below, or to such other addresses as the parties may from time to time advise by notice in writing. The date of return receipt of any such notice, demand, request or submission shall be presumed (which presumption is rebuttable) to be the date of delivery. NOTICES IN THE CASE OF THE CITY: Public Works Director City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Should the above Registered Agent become unavailable, the CITY consents to legal service upon the Secretary of State of the State of Washington -_ NOTICES IN CASE OF THE STATE: Director, Public Transportation and Rail Division Washington State Department of Transportation Mail Stop 47387 Olympia, WA 98504-7387 Ph (360) 705-7920 SECTION XVI. -- INTERPRETATION RR-00235 9 This Agreement shall be construed liberally so as to secure to each party hereto all of the rights; privileges, and benefits herein provided or manifestly intended. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof is for the exclusive benefit of the parties hereto and not for the benefit of any third party. Nothing herein contained shall be taken as creating or increasing any right of a third party to recover by way,of damages or otherwise against the parties hereto. If any covenant or provision, or part thereof, of this Agreement shall be adjudged void, such adjudication shall not affect the validity or obligation of performance of any other covenant or provision, or part thereof, which in itself is valid, if such remainder conforms to the terms and requirements of applicable law and the intent of this Agreement. No controversy concerning any covenant or provision shall delay the performance of any other provisions except as herein allowed. All remedies provided in the Agreement are distinct and cumulative to any other right or remedy under this document or afforded by law or equity, and may be exercised independently, concurrently, or successively therewith. The term"Agreement" shall mean Agreement Number RR-00235, Appendix A attached hereto and duly executed supplements. Any forbearance of the parties in exercising any right or remedy hereunder, or otherwise afforded by applicable law, shall not be a waiver of, or preclude the exercise of any such right or remedy. Each party hereby agrees to immediately notify the other of any change in conditions or law, or any other event, which may significantly affect its ability to perform the project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. SECTION XVII. -- SUBCONTRACTING No contract between the CITY and its contractors and/or their subcontractors, and/or material suppliers shall create any obligation or liability of the STATE with regard to this Agreement without the STATE'S specific written consent of such obligation or liability and notwithstanding its concurrence in, or approval of, the award of any contract or subcontract or the solicitation thereof. The CITY hereby agrees to include the provisions of this agreement in all contracts entered into by the CITY for the employment of any individuals, procurement of any materials, or the performance of any work to be accomplished under this Agreement. SECTION XVIII. -- LAWS TO BE OBSERVED The CITY shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, regulations, and orders pertaining to the project and if failure on the part of the CITY to comply therewith shall result in a fine, penalty, cost, or charge being imposed or assessed on or against the STATE, the CITY shall assume and bear all such fines, penalties, cost, and charges, and in 'the event the STATE shall in the first instance pay the same, the CITY upon demand shall promptly reimburse, indemnify and hold harmless the STATE for or on account of such fine, penalty, cost or charge RR-00235 10 and all expenses and attorney's fees incurred in defending any action, which may be brought against the STATE on account thereof, and the CITY shall, in the event of any such action, upon notice thereof, given to it by the STATE, defend such actions free of cost, charge and expense to the STATE. (a) Safety. The CITY shall do all things necessary and proper for the safe operation of the Rail Line and shall comply with all regulations prescribed by law or any public authority with respect thereto for the safety of the public or otherwise. (b) Permits and Compliance with land use and environmental laws. The CITY shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from federal, state, and local agencies of government and compliance with land use and environmental regulations pertaining to the performance of work under this Agreement. . (c) Independent Contractor. The CITY shall be deemed an independent contractor for'all purposes and the employees of the CITY or any of its contractors, subcontractors, lessees and the employees thereof, shall not in any manner be deemed the employees or agents of the STATE. (d) Responsibility for Damage. The STATE, Commission, Secretary, and all officers and employees of the STATE, including but not limited to those of the Department of Transportation shall.not be responsible in any manner for: any loss or damage to the work or any part thereof; for any loss of material or damage to any of the materials or other things used or employed in the performance of the work; for any injury to or death of any persons, either workers or the public, or for damage to the public for ariy cause due to by the intentional acts or negligence of the CITY or its workers, or anyone employed by it. The CITY shall indemnify and hold the STATE and all its officers and employees harmless from, and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits at law or equity arising out of this Agreement, the CITY's and/or its subcontractor's performance or failure to perform any and all duties prescribed by this Agreement; provided that nothing herein shall require the CITY to indemnify the STATE against and hold harmless the STATE claims, demands, or suits based solely upon the negligent conduct of the STATE, it's officers or employees; and provided further that if the claims, demands or suit is caused by or results from the concurrent negligence of(a) the CITY's agents or employees.and (b) the STATE's agents or employees, and involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, this indemnity provision with respect to claims or suits based upon such negligence shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the CITY'S negligence or the negligence of the CITY's agents or employees. (e) No Waiver of STATE's Rights. The STATE shall not be precluded or estopped by any measurement, estimate, or certificate made either before or after the completion and acceptance of the work and payment therefore from showing the true amount and character of the work performed and materials furnished, or from showing that any such measurement, estimate, or certificate is untrue or incorrectly made, or that the work or materials do not conform in fact to the Agreement. Neither the acceptance by the STATE nor any payment for the whole or any part of the work, nor any extension of time, nor any portion of the RR-00235 11 Agreement or of any power herein reserved or any right to damages herein provided, or bar recovery of any money wrongfully or erroneously paid to the CITY. A waiver of any breach of contract shall not be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. (f) Venue. In the event that any party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, situated in Thurston County. (g) Personal Liability of Public Officers. No officer or employee of the STATE shall be personally liable for any act, or failure to act, in connection with this Agreement, it being understood that in such matters they are acting solely as agents of the STATE. (h) Compliance With Social Laws. During the term of the Agreement, the CITY and its contractors, subcontractors, and lessees shall comply with all applicable STATE and Federal; workmen's compensation, employer's liability and safety and other similar laws applicable to the CITY. (i) Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, the CITY or its Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, marital status, age, color, sex or national origin, or disability, except for a bona fide occupational qualification. The CITY shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and that employees.are treated during their employment without regard to their race, creed, marital status, age, color, sex, national origin, or disability, except for a bona fide occupational qualification. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship. 0) Non-Discrimination Assurance. The CITY hereby agrees that as a.condition to receiving any financial assistance pursuant to this Agreement, it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Sta.252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d through 2000e-16 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, C.F.R., U:S. Department of Transportation, Sub-Title A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Transportation-- the effectuation of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations)=and other pertinent directives, to the end that, in accordance with the Act, Regulations, and other pertinent directives, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of sex, race, color, marital status, age, creed, national origin, or disability, except for a bona fide occupational qualification, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the CITY receives financial assistance pursuant to this Agreement. The CITY hereby assures that it will promptly take any measures necessary to effectuate this condition precedent. It is understood that the CITY shall be deemed the "recipient" as that term is used in the Act or the Regulations referred to in this paragraph. SECTION XIX. -- COMPLETE AGREEMENT RR-00235 12 This document and referenced attachments contains all covenants, stipulations and provisions agreed upon by the parties. No agents, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable for, any statement, representation, promise or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment to this Agreement. SECTION XX. -- EXECUTION OF ACCEPTANCE The parties adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants, and Appendices to this Agreement. SECTION XXI. -- AMENDMENT This Agreement and any provisions hereof may only be amended by written agreement of the parties. RR-00235 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year last written below. STATE OF WASHINGTON Department of Transportation By: A4blic S H. SLAKEY Manager Transportation and Rail Division Date: CITY OF YELM By: lit,Q - Ken Ga nn Public Works Director Date: - C� Approved as to form: CHRISTINE GREGOIRE Attorney General State of Washington By: Q Assistant Attorney General Any modification, change or revision to this Agreement requires the further approval as to form of the Office of the Attorney General. RR-00235 14 APPENDIX A Project Plans and Specifications: A copy of the City of Yelm's Railroad Acquisition and Rehabilitation Plans and Specifications for the Lakewood to Yelm Railroad are on file in the Washington State Department of Transportation's Rail Office and by reference is made part of this Agreement. file:g°rail\docs\projects1ar00235 RR-00235 15 arcs a transrni To: STEVE DAY Fax: 206-343-7053 From: KEN GARMANN Date: 02/03/99 Re: BNSF Pages: 3 CC: [Click here and type name] ❑ Urgent 0 For Review Er Please Comment Er Please Reply ❑ Please Recycl ATTACHED IS DRAFT LETTER TO RICH BATTLE AT THE BNSF RAILWAY CO.REGARDING OUR IX <PHQNE CONVERSATION. PLEASE REVIEW AND FAX OR CALL WITH YOUR COMMENTS.THANK YOU#►�r�^-, 4 �F y facs=* ' le tansffi al ........... To: CHARLIE BURNHAM Fax: 253-922-9781 From: KEN GARMANN Date: 02/03/99 Re: BNSF Pages: 3 CC: ❑ Urgent ID For Review D Please Comment, RrPlease Reply ❑ Please Recycl ATTACHED,IS DRAFT LETTER TO RICH BATTIE(sp)AT THE BNSF RAILWAY CO.REGARDING OUR PHONE CONVERSATION. PLEASE REVIEW AND FAX OR CALL WITH YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU11! ID!� . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . { E February 2, 1999 Mr. R ch,Uaffie, Project Manager Short-Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive U ,� P.O. Box 961052 Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 RE: "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr. Battie, Thank you for returning my phone call January 71h of this year, regarding the BNSF "Prairie Line" —Yelm to Lakeview. As I understand, our conversation based on our letter to Mr. Jerry Johnson, the BNSF is not interested in conveying the"Prairie Line" to the City of Yelm. Specifically as outlined in our letter: • The BNSF will not grant a"first right of refusal" for the right of way improvements or traffic on the "Nisqually Line" as this is going to become part of the Amtrak route south of Tacoma. • The BNSF will not grpatt interchange rights at the Tacoma Yard due to the potential of conflicts o greements. • The BNSF will not grant, nor create any short line operations between Roy and Lakeview including Ft. Lewis traffic, Roy traffic nor Wilcox traffic at this time. Additionally, the BNSF will not allow any interchange at Roy from the Yelm to Roy segment. • The BNSF will consider the transfer of the Yelm to Roy segment at an appropriate time in the near future. 1 Naturally, we are disappointed that the BNSF is not more receptive to our proposal. The community involvement and efforts put forth to develop and fund our plan have been enormous, and the sense of community pride in this project has had significant local and regional support as well. We are also disappointed that we did not receive a reply from Mr. Johnson, as at our June 26th meeting he seemed receptive to the idea of developing a"short line" from Yelm to Lakeview. It was this seed that encouraged the City, the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and business leaders in our community and Roy to actively develop strategies which include the preservation of current service and development of future rail traffic on the "Prairie Line". In fact, as we stated in our original letter, it is our strong desire to dramatically increase the traffic on this line, allowing the BNSF to enjoy additional revenues without increased cost. The ownership and operation of the"Prairie Line" by the City of Yelm will regionally benefit local rail users and meet our "Growth Management Plan" objectives of providing multi-modal transport opportunities along the corridor. We request the BNSF reconsider its position on the development of the"Prairie Line" Yelm to Lakeview as a short line and work with the City of Yelm to realize this goal. Perhaps it would be beneficial for a representative of the BNSF to meet with our group to discuss these issues and explore avenues available to make the Prairie Line a reality for the City of Yelm. We await your favorable reply. Please direct your correspondence to my attention. If you have any questions, feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499. Sincerely, City of Yelm Ken Garmann , Public Works Director cc: Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor Shelly Badger, CAO Jerry Johnson, BNSF att: copy of Jerry Johnson letter 2 02/03/99 WED 15:32 FAX 253 922 9781 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES L - �� DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, T E L r3C O P Y TRANSMITTAL 3400 Pacific Highway Emn TO: �`--L=�/ �.� A�v�Y FAX NO: ,�( j ,�� 'Qj Suite 311 PHONE NO: Tacoma, Washington 98¢24 FIRM: G7Y C>.#--Ye-.^4 #OF PAGES: Tal; 253.qu,978o FROM: (?44 AO2-1.dam REGARDING: Fax: 253-9�-9781 ,s DATE: COPIES: ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: ❑ REGULAR MAIL OVERNIGHT MAIL COURIER M/A COMMENTS: �•]/y�fT"rj k&t) /^r!5 / J'Q n $OM E 02/03/99 WED 15:32 FAX 253 922 9781 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 0 002 0.2-03-99 10:07AM FROM F IC WORKS P02 February 2, 199 Mr.Rich Battie,Project Manager Short�Line and Inter-Line Development BNSF Railway Co. 2650 Lou Menk Drive �.,"� ,d P_O. Box 961052 — Fort Worth TX 76161-0052 ' RE: "Prairie Line"—Yelm to Lakeview Dear Mr_RaWe, Thank you for returning my phone call January 7'h of this year,regardinLour SF "Prairie Line'—Yelm to Lakeview. As I understan our conversation letter to Mr. Jerry Johnson, the BNSF is not interest in conveying the"Prairie Line"to the City of Yelm, &r 'rr4l5 7f"g 7}aG B sr Asa Specifically our letter;iS ; • The BNSF will not grant a"first right of refusal" for the right of way improvements or traffic on the`'Nisqually Line"as this become part of the Amtrak rou of Tacoma. S7'!av ■ The$NSF will not gr nterobange rights at the Tacoma Yard due to the potential of conflicts • The BNSF will not grant, noir create any short line operations between Roy and Lakeview including Ft. Lewis traffle, Roy traffic nor Wilcox traffic at this time. Additionally, the BNSF will not allow any interchange at Roy from the Yelrn to Roy segment, • The BNSF will consider the transfer of the Yelm to Roy segment 3riF RW-4ieaa in the near future_ 1 02/03/99 WED 09:88 CTX/RX NO 96631 t]002 ' 9AN-29-1999 09:45 FILE- P.01 BETTS PATTERSON &MINES, P.S. 800 Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle,Washington 98161-1090 Fax: 206-343-7053 Phone: 206-292-9988 FAX COVER SHEET TO: Iden Garman FAX NO.: (360) 458-4348 OF: City of Yelm FROM: Stephen L. Day OUR FILE: 57820001 RE: BNSF Corporate Staff NO. OF PAGES (INCL. THIS PAGE): 2 DATE: 1128199 Please call (206)292-9988 (Ext. 557) if you do not receive any of these pages or if there is a f problem. PLEASE DELIVER D IATELY: (_) NOTE: Current as of Nov/Dee/ 1998. Doug Babb and Matt Rose (operations) are the two corporate "comers" as far as I can tell. I hate to add another "consultant" onto the project, but I do find Fred Hamlin, (541) 484-2303, has access to Babb and Krebs and can get things rolling sometimes. j Perhaps we invite Babb to a get acquainted affair and add in the Port of Olympia and other political types. Doug does like the political side and is comfortable doing deals for political reasons. I think I will write and suggest Mike Lyders to Lisa. I do think he could help, overall. He could help us too, but by working for Miles. I am starting to feel like a consultant marketing agent! THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE(206)292-9988,AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA U.S.POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. JAN-29-1999 09:45 P.02 86 ' 8' di .gton Nort ern S:N-..S:F : anta Fe` tmLoi(um*-D&%PA,Bmt Ii lW, Wollf4 TX 7771fda1>L1rea,tori wlelttr 7a102d3a4. -:•.` j°j' {� - -1700 bet C3oIf Rad,taOhvuntb ,IL 1ta178.8500 • �i•r`• ,��,.,:^ �� `I=. ;�";f;:' I ROBERT D.MMM C Premed and GTdeQ OEforr;' fae��Woth;'TX _ ¢g ' DOUGLAS J.BABB,SNOW Wtoe P1eakh% 84ul"e*e U*' JEFFERY R MOfELAND,Srrlor Wka P/MkYnPand CJYd a/Sgd MATTHEW K ROSE,S4r,&Woe An dont and tliva/drr O18av DENIS E SPRINGER.Senior Wo Pr W$jd*s I and f7rY mw LRlkai CHARLES L SC2 MTM SeniorYka PtearaWtt AiWbmoAW uAwive�UnT';` GREGORY T.SWIENTON,Sealer Was Pneldnt lWAgdadaNW Glonwriodas&rNbreeo U* - CHIEF of STAFF LAW JEWEREY R,MORELAND,SW*W WW PM$kfed and CNSf 0(S1etl ,FEF FREY R MOWMANO,Senior V m Pmk%W and CW61 Of Staff (817)352.2372 Ft Vftt%TX (847) 54=5 Sduw&iS L RICA L GARDNER,Nw Pia bw4 Umm Rome— (817)3524480 FL Waft TX amly CROSBY,Woe PmddW IJlIpdoo ' (e4*954=S&M nbup,L MAR"K MORGAN,WN Peeldent lmwlor Rdit m and Secnmry ARIHUR ENDRES,Wm PmUmt Gmwmm*Agaw(Fo&-7 (817)3524452 FL Worth.TX (202)34748882 Watkow,DC JAMES J.VNEL,Wa Preskkrrt PWf*and Facifts Afanagement RIC 4ARD WEICHER.Vow Preld nt and Genre!Caarrset(TranVortatfan) (817)352.8488 Ft Worth,TX (847p5-0M7 Sdetwmblxp.It. RMARD A.RUSBACK Vlm Preetdent CapmO ROWom (817)352.842,5 FL Wbdh.TX SHI Lm VI7am General CANOW (84 ps-11813 SdwAnbL%L BRUCE E FREEMAN,Woa Prvaldsrd and chief hkVmaBon OrLmr PAI.L E.NOwICK1,AedeWt VIN Pm dant crowd 6 Pub9c PdkY (817)152.7001 FL World,TX (647)886.7133 SchaumMNO,IL JAMES V SHEA,.AsfsWd Ww PmbW Adeckd (817)352.1830 FL Worth,TX OPERATIONS MA THEW K ROSE,Senior WIN Pmeldmt and CNN 0peraaoru Onfeer Coal rind AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES (817)352-1200 FL Worth,TX GREGORY T.SWIENTON,Sotto►Vim PresNe"t (8171352.6250 Ft.Worth,TX TH,D BAHAM,WN Pmldsnt,Sd*iy Thdning and RtAes (817)352-1510 FL Worth,TX STEVAN B.8088,Wm Pnmkb d AydaaM W CammodX- (817)952-0111 Ft Wont,TX RO.UN BREDENBERG,We Presbmt,OPnra*M-Qouth (817)352.1304 Ft Wont,TX THOMAS G.KRAEMER,Woo PmMont Gad a Groh Operad— M )AVID DEALY,Woe Preaklant (817)352-1215 FL WOO,TX (817)352.6242 Ft worth,Tx JCN IN J.FLEPS,Nov Pre bW,Labor Rebiforre (817)352-1020 Ft Worth,TX DAVID S.GUIL ICI.Wks Pra k*K coot Markebrrg (817)352-0248 FI.Worth,TX M! EL W.FRANKE,Wks pms dant and 0W Enghea (817)352-1800 Ft Worth,TX SAMI M.SHALAK VIN Prnaldmt Coal Matkethrg (817)352-8253 FL Worth,TX ER iEST L(BUCK)HORD,Wo Prosldent OPeMUM-UP/SP Ll— PAUL ANDERSON,Dhsolm-harm (81713524232 FL Worth,TX (817)3524878 FL Wmth,'TX CA il.R.ICE,Wiav Pmi*W 3 Ch.W Meets*001&er (8171352.1400 FL Worth,TX INTERMODAL and AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS UNIT G G W STENGEM,Wm Pmsldmt Seam Dvslpo A systems CHAfal.EB L SCHULTZ,Senior We Pnsldend (817)352.6800 FL Worth,TX (817)352-1220 FL Word.TX STEVE BRANSCUM.'MN Praddent bWff4dd Markeft (817)352.8555 Ft Worth.TX JS N R.ARNDT,Am&Wd NN Pm Ws%Rand Sloport (817)317--1011 FL Wath,TX FRITZ 0.DRAPPER,Woo Preeident bdaffmW OPeraaorte (817)352-0573 FL Worth,TX PAI RICK CARTER,Asian d WN Pmsidem Rvamxcs Protection KATHLEEN A.REGAN,vice.President,Aulano" (817)352408 Ft Worth.TX (817)352-2700 Ft.Worth,TX TODD OLSEN,Assistant WN Pimbont Finance (817)352458%Ft Wont,TX NICK C.MARSH,Aufatent Woe Prmstdent TeGet iW Research and Nwkpmoffl 435.5850 Topeka,KS MERCHANDISE BUSINESS UNIT SERVICE'REGIONS OOUGLAB_J.BARB,SaYor`Nov Preeldttd' (817152.6404 FL Wont TX BO D ANDREW,AeebWrt Utes PrvabenC Anisrf4o 8&0-Region GEORGE T.DUGGAN.Wov Pr4rkW C7minkaly i PAlft (817)3S2.8M6 FL Worth,TX �2D swim Pock.Sulo 600.ArradRO,TX 70101. DAVID L GARIN,NO PhUkfwrt MAIN and Afma* (617)9524301 FL Worth,TX D.YEAGER,Asdali6t WN I'ma bot Dumont&&0406 Repfar MAS(TAY)LYMIW,Jr,W1ae Ptesldent[Anskrner Ser1iN ono Brehss tlhlt Support 37M GiobevGv Roel.Off—,CO t1ms (017}317.10ot R worth,TX HARDY,AuioWg Wm President:Kansas Cby SeMN Rogw r r ..4815 Kennet Avs„KarMs Clty,KS 861.0 - ROWD O.NELSON.Via Pia Wag CCYieufnol:Pmducb (8171352.850 FL Worth.TX WILLIAM f.ROMBERG,Wm Pl abK Facet Products (817)3524350 FL Worth,TX R AVID CLIFTON,Ambled Wev Pr aklent,AIMOS Servkr RegA- PETER J.RICI(EfiSW1USEPl.ice ftSoerrt AfadaDtty-UP/SP Lbus 4515 Karim Ave.,Kwms ft KS WI06 (817)3524888 FL Worth,TX RA f STEPHENS.Ambtanf Vice Pm mt SeefOe Sorvke Region 'JERRY M.JOHNSON.Asshtend Ncd Pnasldstlt.Shod Line Evedmlm and Sake 2454 OaiduMal Ave.S.,Sults 1A waft.WA 1N194 (817)35244.94 Ft WadN TX J F B.WRtOHT.AukAW Wks Pm$dW Sdufhom CYflMnda&n4-Region SKIP KALE Aulsatd Wkv Prs UNA ftx%abW DsvdWF-d (817)352-0133 FL Worth,TX 740 E-S4 Ddvo,San Bornandlno,CA 92408 HENRY B.LAMPE.Am Wm Paskl M.Shod Urte Budness PnW*msnt BRUCE Aeefatrnt Me Pnvddrrtt 7lvh C2Bee arvkAAeplon Wd (6171352'8130 Ft Worth.TX 6044th Ave,NE,MMnapolM.MN 85421 $MO SABEE,AatsM Wes PmskWt Fkw" (817)352.6150 Ft Worth,TX DIVISION SUPERINTENDENTS RICHARD W.BROWN.Gmand AIMia,Fi xNm Dewkpmed MI SHIRCUFF,AMMO DIWW.n 320 S.Pok Suhs 6W,Amadit TX 79101 (817)352-0102 FL Worth•TX TCH HUNTER.AdWMl ONWOn 301 East 2m1 Srist,Wim.AZ 01147 FRED MAL ESA.General Dirsdor.Equtp»wd mmmgement (817)352.6389 FL Worth,TX CUW;;i IGHT.a-Imp m tion 5601 W 28th Street,Cl—,L 60660 fF , OMISKEY.Colorado Divi" 3700 Glabav@e Road,Demer,CO 60216 FINANCE SLER,DA I 1 1 DMdon 400 West Padlk,Wilmer,MN 56201 WOOD,GW Oleir(aR 214 Bddwm,Peadand.TX 7701 I DENTS E SPRINGER,Senior Vim Pmfderd and Chfd Fftwhew Officer LTER,!!tools Dmskn 1670 S.Hendsmon.Galesburg,IL 61401 (8471885-8401 SdaumbrNg,ILEATHERBY,Kangas DMelan .4516 Kansm Ave.,Kansa CRY.KS 66105 FRANK C.GREEN,WN PAN&W IRtetnOAudt (847)895.8485 Schaumbwj,IL AS,Kansai Ctly retmhal DM$bn 4515 Kansas Ave.,Kullea Gty.KS 66106 THOMAS N.HUND.Not:President and Cbnbalfa (8471995'6001 Schaw".L RRETT, DivW- 6401 E$hazy Okla,MempM6 TN 3811a PATRI K J.OTTENSMEYER..Vlm'Paslelsrdaid Tia m- (847)885.8402 Sdaumburg,ILTHOMPSON.Mltlwota Division 60 44th Aa.;NE,Mlrsaapofl.MN 15421DANIELJ,.WESTERBECK'Wce PmkW and General Tex Coa" NDER,114mbu Division 235 Metra Str+�,Henn,MT 59501 (847)995-0901 Schaumburg•ILNebraaka 201 m 7th Street Boz 83010;Lincoln.NE 685MS,New MWW D OSW 121 Sam Mal% ID*.NM 58101 1776 W.MeehLem,SbaMACA96207 YCingon DMflan1313 W.11th Street.V'+ncauvs,WA OW HITE,Paedfk DlWsbn 2454 OcddSnialAa.,Butte PowerRhear Divtson 111WFletDlvldan,Af W1co,NE68301 1625 N.Ludngton,svkv alb.IAO 65402 SMITH,Soud»m Ca2domla Divkiae 740.E.Caree9ls oda,Sen Bempnil-,CAOl RIR,texas DtiLsian '4200 0e®n Road,Ft.Worth,TX 79108 RYEA,Her Dlvltlon 4501 E6�1 Wtaeonaln,Spolrana,WA 99220 TOTAL P.02 CCM 7T7C) Ow ;9 S U.S.Department 400 Seventh St., S.W. of Transportation January 26, 1999 Washington, D.C.20590 Federal Highway Administration �4 Refer to: HEP-20 City of Yelm ` r P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear Applicant, We regret to inform you that your Letter of Intent under the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program(TCSP)has not been selected to be,submitted as a full proposal. We received more than 520 requests totaling almost $400 million in response to the Federal Register notice (September 16, 1998, F.R. Vol. 63,No. 179) and were able to select only a limited number for further consideration for the$13 million in funds available in Fiscal Year 1999. Although your Letter of Intent was not selected this year, there will be other opportunities in the remaining four years of the pilot program. While we received many proposals that could be enhanced and resubmitted in future years, we also received proposals that did not address the purposes of TCSP. We plan to publish a Federal Register notice in March providing information for the Fiscal Year 2000 TCSP requests. The notice will include information on the projects selected in FY 1999 and further clarification of the program which may help you develop proposals in the future. Further, because of the very limited funds available under the TCSP,we encourage you to work with your State Department of Transportation, regional transit agency, Metropolitan Planning Organization, or state, Federal, or local environmental agency to determine if other funding sources are available for your activity. Thank you for submitting your Letter of Intent for the TCSP and your interest in furthering transportation and community and system preservation. Sincerely yours, / �arna Juhasz gay who hitherto Riau I—L ...� .- a to my.boas. u,,,,u,b, _. condi- down a hill with the 5-year- extensive damage I have been in the business of repairs t of$101000- •y wife :and':. I in unsatisfactory. working good many, :line, but the weight of the Fortunately t out injuries.'Upon tion. ;;, pulling trailer's for a g My wife and I just want to warn P after a escaped ears,. all over the states. From h s eed. He stopped. .. our readers about this type of Not soCrrandpa. examination of the, boat.trailer I havemer h�andisme-init as is" y s standing speed brakes by a licensed professional, :cha'sing unscrupulous business'practice. With the::sp be faulty:The condition..I understood:that e1 this to where we had the accident,dent,was unson'p Bud and Beulah Fitzhugh us he flipped --on they:were found to tel five miles, m very 'avenue. Quick.,:tlu�g cylinders were leaking, buying a.used boat.:However, roxima y . nor Man.saved Dad",serious there was a broken return SO 91 dealer sold me`a'boat`with a trail' aPP -.. • u.; ere .e alert had no.. 'boa eable'.brakes slow traffic;and we had no reason i 1- out and fh ' ease seal was .�? T �t - amazing;because even when the,gr . ; ; a��. every other s° '� v� i ire LitOR �I�road isdemeanor,( f3 lan�-forwnew Pira a =x�. � es funded with f babysitting roar child. sure, Fe We p . 4 .: walkover bro-, 1 ariea. 4 + -. �,�•, a , ' rail service will not be account inert-run short lin your pocket for.They will. = ' _ een in recent.history,; enough that is;to be taxpayers' money. Is y ear or: the ro osed short able as the only thing and ready for this? chance to take a quick tnp.to vin s business along P .P Pat: a-g I have some serious misgl g ort-service. Lhave,-not, invested.will:be the taxpayers' deep �j een overjoy o ed_t° takecare of Line Railroad; I line to support.-service y and when that runs out , rJ Y about the prairie heard estimate when this more o back to the )rte of them had the measles. like to refer'-to:it as'the B.W.T. in the will.just g „�, one of the kids whine proposed osed service would operate.. . "Bottomless Well"for more. Railroad or Bo tiomless,:.Well, p .P e black. rail but not for govern- , c:. the 'm ro- , .. ;, I �.;! tl1:,:7[J1[.:1 n tes,terrible parents that Taxpayers'Railroad.' I+ aid the proponents or this ;l. .,;i ; r, .,u;;[;; i„ ; r;: . Y. is t now,nor has ere m „ si i.�, f �' ,,, I; ,„7 e:�'rjt 'r[ _ t ere y. ��.,;.. ` ,-. „ :,..,,► „r .:��, ;.n ` Ik' g ache ... . e no + „ 1� i ,Npit! . Th .. ::.1 to r Skin andbecam `,4 ,r, y� ,,.; r.'.z, a, ,i.,,,�,{, .:, �� � ►E ,.. nteeri gta in to.f _,�, ►�:s�: }� :�w, „� ,��,..�;.;a�. OIS est vOl4 iYf1 , elm "scho , sugg;, and go to the teachers or the prin- PA Readers sup " you can help Editor:. _ �:-`?= " �f Southworth'and another. will start uated. our child and the rest of the cipa „ Dear �,•- ears.::We could'not'Have :I:am.also in ccluldrnen's teach- your and ask how school. We wanted to,respond ao t e i tWO y, ers to be kept up to date on any you and your child recent-criticism of Yelm Com- ask d-for tter.t e be teachers o ac ers or,a bet wi R, ` roblems.they may be having. I Remember,of.school.what you ter principal• R ember, mumty Schools.-: ; `. I ive m time freely :to P azents,who are will get out We have lived,in Yelm all of our. $ . y” ossible.to make know of nanY P ,..aP both put in. :;.. the same. . a roblem Mr:and Mrs.Sadoski lives and went to sC ent§sand school better for my'own kids and doing you are having P e tired:: 12 years, as...did,our par ; &: pre 4' thworth. I will continue to with the I O° you vohunteer grandparld is ents.:'Wd �eet-f rtunate Son rest of the children 'at it y suggest to me .that we .either'work mat our kids will cio the same. :- volunteer until my lads have grad attending, together or we will experience a We have two.children attending . ' .; _ , crisis. How do.individual citi- - ent of the president 2 --'Zelp in this potential.cris'ed .necessary.for ItYlpeaehm the Constitution intended? Ap by becoming prepare are not Actual. crimes:, _ uotes came from the Jan. 18�, please let your senators know as individuals, as families, as ,,: � . eachable conduct to criminal quotes "The New :� imp atible '1999; issue of _ Pena for lying i neighbors.and as`members of a, D Editor: " c - American" magazine. I wonder that the p Y united..community helping on. I've noticed.a lot,of letters.in off�nsmee de d e and w uld,�s a penalty is not censure 5 ews a ers lately that coin ' ose that the framers why.-the standard can!., be the removal from office, if four another;;., :;: "then p P Sante for..every Y� $ George Laffi On Jan::.13;:1999, Governor plain about the.-Congress,;ori'sa ;ate the c� baa the framers of of gtultY P William. Janklow of South, witch hunt of sour President. Iran F arty Dakota:gave,his"State:of the across an.article.the other day that 'ti .That study..and conclusion was • and devoted a good ht,;on the ,framed,in Part,m 1974 by a judi- �S• State address might shed some lig staffer and Yale'I;aw'Schoolto retie onion of it,to Y2K. For your unwillingness of the_Democrats,to clary . Rodham. Iffo P er contem- graduate,,_ information and.furth listen to the evidence and do.;their �Iri Bill;Clinton's case, crimen A G$-2681 plation, I,would like to provide .,sworn duty:according; t4, the Phone; (360) 45 n, ,d`o' cs against the state.were:'committed. an excerpt from his speech: r^. sexu-� Constitution: -.': _ ;s. And perjury, even involving"I've'deliberately bit�my lip Actual crimes'are riot`necessary incidents, has often resulted in 360 458-5741 ears on this eachment.i`-Notes im eachment.�: F �; "for the.last two y for. imp roseciition and,,,., p.. .d now we are Connmittee staff memo- • P ++ notes"a recent'subject:'matter,,an. Judiciary eacha6le Since;,;1974,1' down to T2_mon • We face:an random: `To.confine imp , .-, HousejJudiciary Committee reporte-IY111� yelmnewsC�yelmtel.com entactr°ohe in the worldrnntiuct to indictable:offenses ,....;PT9nQ'the modern history of _JJrwa+c• �m vplm Avenue West •:CJ :G. :J`: }iL t5aJ' a.. r , JL.a el,.ry �•�. J ' ofo oviating traff _P leets bu pans- pyasn; as'fr .r. in the dis lacement'of.` ,' g P an:estimat "tions.at'tliis time to;which Cancoll ng;;`for$ Casillas ' Was ed,l5Jo 20.:.houses.and.,requiring responded, "Then there's no.pur- for Thursday morning:' the purchase,of up.to 85 parcels of 'pose for this meeting:' County deputy prosecu= land. The project' also Involves . Afterwards, Carroll said he was arJu'satd the:crime'was putting' in a turn lane between. concerned about traffic that would .ourth strike. under the • Ye1m Avenue's two existing travel travel the Y3 portion of the corri- -ee strikes;yoou'ie out" lanes, dor to Rhoton Road, alon which S would likely receive a Project man ager Perry Shea,'em- lie: several large businesses, 'in- sentence: as as ie- ' 3 ployed`by SCA Engineering,',of cluding LASCO Inc. ife�'sentence for �dru s Lace used slides°to ou ' " ' - Y�: tune.the I m exceedin 1 . concerned ns charges ttz October. hi S Y �, ;<'< ::;............: _ r story of the project"all the-,way . about traffic along Rhoton Road,; back to 1989, when the;Yelm City. Carroll said. "I want to know what Council declared 'a-traffic .ewer they're going to do about noise gency. abatement" Without the project,peopletrav- During his presentation, Shea een eling along Yelm Avenue in 2020 said the corridor provides . for would have to wait at traffic lights enough right-of-way to enable mit- up ' to five minutes' and igation of. traffic noise. He' ac- wouldn't be able to turn left onto knowledged, however,' that there a' dult" the roadway from any driveway, will be "a change of character"'' Shea said.. Ym teports indicate a sec There are twice as many acci Please see Y2N3 . dents per mile along Yelm Avenue Page A-12 is involved in the inti- .. at no'additional'charges. : He',was given a 21=to ispettded sentence-1 n- ®ff c' aial Sex Offender Dis a I S '• ek: . alternative, was sen- months of community - ancl ord r to'`un ie �'l fdrMa.1111 " eed r_ tire ;nt sex offender `treat- pon �.� )ent five:days in.deten-. ary 1997 re,*ort, Davis f r 0 m ped 'as swell=Behaved, r y a ad-no record of behav=' y Steve Hillmer-.:., B .sign, said Garman, who.added ms at school i*in the that he,wasn't, free ,to discuss od Police�, ieports` .Nisqually Valley News ;.specifics of the negotiations thus ast any element'of co Yelm'." Pubhc, Works Director far fK creat in fhd:1996 inti Ken'Gainiann pard this week he's Local'politicians;':civic i leader`s . hild examined follow drafting a letter.to,the owners of `and business peopie-hope acquisi- lent vias found to have the;"Frain Line" railroad``to re +aiokgf the 1�7-mile-abandoned_rail o' senors";emotional quest a,written:response:concern fhne.between Yelm and Lakewood. ,,.the report laid. • ` ing an offer'to purchase the line "rail line will make the area more arlier;incident, Davis Garman said riegotiatiQns have �-attractive for;industrial developers lty to performing oral Been coridttcted between Yehii and andFcuirent businesses. n 6-year old -girl. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe over n Although the"purchase price:Yis I-& last week. accuse the telephone, liutahat no written sub ect`.to,negotiation; Yelm has rfornung oral-sex and:;-response has yet been received received a $340;000 federal grant City officials made;"an';offer to :i forpurchasing and maintaining the being, held'f-in :the-; BNSF in December 'and.had.re- property:.While.Yelm will be the )un{y:'Juvenile.Deter- �quested a response by Dec.30:' lead agency in the acquisition, the in$10,000 bail. ; "s' 'The fact.that BNSF has not yet-. city,of..Roy will also have invest- responded in- is a"neutral inert..` F"Rainier girls win Checkout what's.happening in the ,. 11 straight Yehn Area Chamber of Commerce ` r` Page B 1 _ -Prairie reivpoant =r Y ', - i _' s� , _ .; ' r s� 01/27/99 WED 11:30 FAX 253 922 9781 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES Q001 T7 m parts Tacoma, Olyia. new tenantS welcome aenoEinthat>�r;na has - By Christopher HOW p conn otheirvinced a long-term hthe to alga 6uSPneS5 Examfmr•SWff anewten- lease. he port of Olymp Western Intermodal's arrival coin- ant, a metal pioducts disUllAdOrrecent arrival Of metal - based in Chicago• ta facility roof and wall manufacturer lyiBCl, modal Services has a distribution which signed a lease on 17,acres at the in Dent but chose to lease almast 30' ort.Port officialB also are loping to square feet of a warehouse attract a steel S in OlymP�a'e P service to district to take advantage of hipping Swantown aci end P Olympia as well• the port's rail cap ty potential Port of Tacoma.meanwhile,ie wel- for distributing imports and mMo�' coming Ace Tank$c Equipment to a 19- Western Intermodal has been using the facilities on a trial basis since Sep- see port. page 5 tember of last year,and company offi- ' Olympia omes welcPort of m s distributorI roductma 1 1 et they to Obrmpia and Taw firmed ma that unable to find apace clos- continued from page 1 when they were Waterway,Ace, or to Seattle. fmm acre site on the Hylebas �fact, Ace was forced to rel which manufactures steel tanks with the its site near the Port of Seattle afterd to capacities up to 60,004 gamed by Tacoma yew,when Seattle decided to can O y�ina118.For( rolocate all opera- site that once was occuP to ees by mid.Novem- Boatbuilding.That site hike been shank- tions and 100 emp Y for five yeas—emcl Boatbuilding' bar.the company had to move c* ma roP orfs of The company hike adopted The newest additions to they their aoatbuilding's environmental cleanup Olympia and Tacoma eaemp Y bilitles and some debts.but these poteatial to benefit i=om rising prices sad reEgMM offeet by local offals'willing went declining space in the Seattle metro bee provide Industrial BYes to region.Real estate experts a�the phe- Revenue Bonds to help cover tanning to nomenon ism�e�S agile t�l�k Ace reports it already� p manufac- absolutely lease warehouse space to other south for accomulo"Ono• OfEicials of Western Eq P o at ®rn- � vices and Ace Tank - post-IV Fax Note 7671 Dais 1 --7 paggess / To From 1 it. �J y a7. th Col spt('r r, p 7 ptme# Phorto IF Fax 1F Fax 4 Q _ Historic Resources of YEIM, WASHINGTON Yelm, as a community did not exist before the railroad. According to one town historian, "...nothing resembling a business community existed prior to 1873....West of the tracks, at its intersection with the wagon road to Olympia, Metcalf and Treat built Yelm's first store. This was followed within a few years by another store east of the track(P.B. Van Trump and Balletti). These businesses, together with a blacksmith shop. across the road, served the needs of prairie residents for years." (Prescott, 1979) ' Other businesses did evolve. In 1883,James Longmire discovered "his" springs near Mount Rainier,built the first wagon road to the future park, and established a guiding station. At the same time his son Robert built a general merchandise store adjacent to the railroad platform in Yelm. Attached to Longmire's store was the Hotel Yelm. Even so,travel and shipping conditions were primi- tive for the early settlers. According to one,"trains stopped only on flag. Neither passengers nor freight had any shelter, only a board platform. If freight came in,itwas unloaded,sometimes on the platform and sometimes on the ground, rain or shine." (Prescott. 1979) By 1912, when the Northern Pacific Rail- road elevated Yelm to official station status, the town had assumed the form still visible today. Businesses, as they had since 1874, concen- trated along the rail line and Yelm Avenue, centering at the crossing of these two routes. Surrounding this district were the residential neighborhoods whose architecture reflected the vernacular styles popular in the builder's manu- als and design catalogs of the day. Later, some houses were prefabricated at the Gruber and Docherty Mill, located near Yelm. Some were imported logging camp bunkhouses modified to meet family needs. Others were constructed by local carpenters, such as Chanes Mittge. THE p�� City of Yelm a M 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELM Yelm, Washington 98597 WASHINGTON (360) 458-3244 January 19, 1999 Mr. Ty Booth, Associate Planner Pierce County Dept . of Planning and Land Services 23401 South 35th Street Tacoma, WA 98409-3131 RE: Miles Sand and Gravel - Roy Surface Mine Unclassified Use Permit Case No. UP6-89, PCDE #11-19 Dear Mr. Booth, Regarding the pending hearing for the Miles Sand and Gravel - Roy Surface Mine located near Roy in Pierce County, your letter dated December 16th, 1998 indicates rail would be the primary mode of transporting product from the site. The City of Yelm has been negotiating with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company to acquire the "Prairie Line" from Yelm to Lakeview. Miles Sand and Gravel has actively supported our efforts by serving on our rail advisory committee, committing financial support for technical and legal issues as well as match for a recent TEA-21 grant . A major component of our efforts to secure this line is to effectively service customers such as Miles Sand and Gravel on their short haul gravel needs to Lakewood and other locations . The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company has not initiated, nor spent significant effort developing, encouraging or servicing potential customers such as Miles Sand and Gravel along the "Prairie Line" . If you have any questions or comments feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499 . Sincerely, City of Yelm f � l Ken Garman Public Works Director CC: Lisa Kittilsby, Miles Sand & Gravel 71 7 FROM:PIERCE COUNTY PA TO: 36040763 C 17. 1998 9:46AM u0501 P.02 I'J Pierce County _. t7epartmant.of Planning and Land Services CHUCK KLEEBERG Director 2401 South 35th Street Tacoma,Washington 98409.7460 (253)798.7200!FAX(253)798-3131 December 16, 1998 Ms. Lisa Kittilsby and Mr. Brad Marton Miles Sand and Gravel Company PO Box 130 Auburn,.WA 98071 Dear Ms. Kittilsby and Mr. Barton: RE: Miles Sand and Gravel-Roy Surface Mine Located two miles south of Roy, WA on SR-507 Unclassified Use Permit Case No. UP6-89,.PCDE#11-19 During the past several months, Pierce County and other have received numerous complaints regarding the activities occurring at the above referenced site. The complaints began with allegations,that the mining operation caused a slope failure ong the south-central portion of the site, near the"Murray Creek wetland corridor. The failure has damaged wetlands, Murray Creek, and associated wildlife habitat. Other concerns have also peen reported, including, off- site discharge of water, hours of operation, heavy trick traffic, and dumping of waste into the east lake excavation.' The existence of the surface mine is auto orized per Unclassified Use Permit Case No. UP6-89, granted by the Pierce County Hearin Examiner on September S, 1989. The permit is further subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Draft E trvn onmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued December 1988, and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued June 1989, for the proposal. Specifically'' Condition c. of the Hearing Examiner's decision states "The development of the property as described in the preliminarysite plan and in the final Environmental Impact Statement for Miles Sand and Gravel company are the controlling prescription for the condition of development. 'I1ic�, nitigation measures proposed in the Draft & Final Environmental Impact Statement are binding upon the developers of the property,'their heirs, successors and assigns until the Unclassified'Use Permit approval expires, is amended or is revoked." j This Department has conducted an investigation into the eomplaidits, with various Staff having visited the site. Our investigation reveals the following concerns at,this time: i MITIGATION OR CONDrf1ONS OF APPROVAL WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MET: A review of tlie.DEIS and FEIS, and Hearing Examiner's cision reveals that be the primary means of transporting product from the s te. .However, ra has never been utilized.. All product has been transported from_the i via truck i I . i FROM:PIERCE COUNTY PALS TO: 3604076305 I L7, 1998 9:46AM n501 P.03 Ms. Lisa Kittilsby and Mr. Brad Barton December 16, 1998 Page 2 • A review of the DEIS and FINS, and Hearing Examiner's decision reveals that a ground base drag line would be utilized to remove the material from the lakes. However, a land based drag line is not being utilized. The pioduct is being removed from the existing east lake excavation via a floating dredge and conveyor belt. • Condition d. of the Hearing Examiner's decision states "Normal operating hours to include all equipment shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and holidays during the months of September through March Viand extended to 10:00 p.m. during the months of April through August. Weekend and Holiday operation will only be allowed on an emergency basis by prior written request to the Planning and Natural Resource Management Department. An emergency shall be defined by Public Works based on weather conditions and job commitments." Stafturther, has observed trucks leaving the site at off hours without approval of Pierce County. neighbors allege that trucks leave the site frequently at off hours. • .A review of the DEIS and FEIS and Hearing Examiner's Conditions g, and h. state that a storm drainage and erosion control plan prepared by ; a professional engineer in accordance with Ordinance 86-60 must be submitted for I review and. disproval. This storm drainage and erosion control plan was submitted in September of 1997. The plan was found to be inadequate and was returned for cortcetion. Another plan was resubnvitted, but also found to be inadequate. Therefore, az�approved plan does not exist even though the mine has been in operation for several year. • The DEIS and FEIS state that the access roads, parking areas, operations areas, and heavily-used haul roads are to be paved and all runoff on these surfaces is to be routed through an oil/water separator and conveyance system intolthe settling pond. The mine has been in operation for several years, however much ofthese areas remain unpaved, and runoff from these areas has been allowed to infiltrate untreated into groundwater and the east lake area. I •. The DEIS indicates that the operations area'is to drain to the settling ponds and that the settling ponds are not to have a direct surface water connection to the excavated east lake. Water that enters the settling pond was supposed to infiltrate into the sides of the pond reentering groundwater. However, it appears there has I been a direct surface water connection between the settling ponds and the east lake area. It also appears that, during periods of high groundwater, the operations area can becorpe flooded providing a direct surface water connection to the east lake. i • The DEIS and FEIS indicate that impacts to surface water Twill be prevented by grading the gravel pit areas to drain internally to the settling f pond and then released to groundwater. The DEIS and FEIS indicate that the takes settling ponds will be i I i I I FROM:PIERCE COUNTY Pk'. TO: 3604076305 l ;EC 17. 1998 9:47AM #501 P.04 Ms. Lisa Kitdlsby and Mr. Brad Barton December 16, 1998 Page 3 located far enough from the existing groundwater springs to prevent migration of turbidity from impacting off-site waters. Contrary to these requirements, an 8-inch stormwater pipe has been installed allowing mine area surface water to discharge to Murray Creek during large storm events.' In addition, a'24-inch diameter stormwater pipe was installed which, for a period of time, directed stotmwater runoff from the mine area to a small depression within 100 feet of the Murray Creek springs. • The DEIS and,FEIS indicate that the maximum water surface will be 305 feet in the east lake. Recently submitted information from the. project geotechnical engineer indicates that this water level averages about.310 feet and has risen as high as 316 feet. A review of the final proposed mine elevations in the DEIS-and FEIS indicates that if 310 feet or higher water levels remain after the mining of the ea$t lake, there could be surface water discharge from the mine into the Murray Creek drainage on a regular basis. This is contrary to the DEIS and FFIS requirements that there be no surface water discharge, and:that all drainage be contained on site. • The DEIS states that containment facilities would be' provid4d for the ion-site fuel.storage, vehicle facilities, and equipment service areas. A 'visit to the site revealed that adequate containment facilities exist for some, but not all..of the storage tanks. Also, numerous barrels exist in the equipment service area which did not appear to have containment Facilities. v • Condition f. of the Hearing Examiner's decision states j "Proposed signage shall be submitted to the Planning and Natural Resource Management Department for review and approval. Only one free-standing sign, not exceeding 20 f square feet in area, shall be allowed in the vicinity of each entrance point to the site."! Staff has observed that two signs exist at the main entrance to the site. • Staff has confirmed that a soil amendment was recentlyught to the site, mixed with mined materials, and utilized to produce topsoil whichww sold commercially. In addition, concrete has been dumped into the lake, purportelly for reclamation purposes. Further, a chemical flocculent was added to the washwafeT. The stated purpose of the flocculent is to bind suspended particles so that they drop lout of the water column and improve water quality. None -of these items. were authorized per the DEIS, FEIS, Hearing Examiner's decision, nor did you receive prior approval by this Department. SLOPE FAILURE: Pierce County has reviewed the slope failure of a hillside in the squth-central portion of the site and associated release of impounded water into wetlands and Murray Creek. In previous correspondence from this Department, dated November 24, 1998, it was determined that your I - I i FROM:PIERCE COUNTY PALS T0: 3604076305 T ?, 1998 9:48AM #501 P.05 Ms. Lisa Kittilsby and Mr. Brad Barton December 16, 1998 Page 4 firm bears substantial responsibility for the magnitude of resource damage which resulted from the slope failure.. Our conclusion, and that of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, is that your activities on the site exacerbated historic slope failures in the south-central portion of the site. Accordingly, your tnn is required to provide mitigation for impacts associated with the slope failure. A wetland application and conceptual mitigation plan arc necessary.. Our review also indicates that the presence of the trench and slope failure area now serves as a potential surface water discharge point. Allowing the discharge of surface water from the site is inconsistent with the requirements of the.EIS. Corrective grading/filling action is necessary to restore the slope failure area and a sufficient arc;:.: of the trench to their pre- existing elevation to prevent surface water discharges from the situ. A site development permit application is necessary to address the corrective grading/filling action. Greater detail of the mitigation requirements can be found in our November 24, 1998, Idtter. Condition b. of the'Hearing Examiner's decision states "The Examiner or the officer assigned such duties shall retain an oversight authority for the reclamation Olan. On the tenth (10) year anniversary of the Examiner's approval, the owner shall submit a r�vised reclamation plan which takes into account any changes to the area, specifically across McKenna Highway. The Examiner may require additional public hearings or may accept klie reclamation plan without additional hearings." This Department finds that the site is hot in compliance with the Unclassified Use Permit, DEIS, and FEIS. Therefore, a 10th year review of the project is necessary now, prior to the anniversary date of the Examiner's approval.p Therefore, a public hearing has been scheduled before the Piercc County Hearing Exiinmer on Thursday, January 21, 1999, to address the reclamation plan, and notably the concerns!addressed in this Ietter. You are required to immediately post the main entrance of the-site with a large Notice of Public Hearing sign. After posting, please submit an affidavit to this Department confirming that the sign was posted. Notice of the hearing will be sent by this Department to parties of record and all others who have expressed an interest in the case. An investigation into the slope failure has also revealed that th.- and FEIS are ambiguous as to where the 200-foot/500-foot buffers are measured from and %�4at activities may or may not occur within such buffers. Furtber, the investigations by Pierce County indicate that the 200- foot/500-foot buffers may not be adequate for retaining water onlsite and protecting adjoining wetlands and Murray Creek. The County will recommend to! the Pierce. County Hearing Examiner that a third party geologic and hydrogcologic review be Completed for the entire 460- acre site. The review would determine if the existing mitigation r#easures are adequate, if new measures are needed, or to determine if the entire 460-acre site has environmental conditions which renders it infeasible for continued mining operations. Our Ireconnmcndation will be that this Department choose the third party reviewer and have Miles pay,for the expenses. Pierce &unty will further recommend to the Hearing Examiner t�at mining not be allowed to proceed into either Phase 2 or 3 until all the issues addressed in this letter are resolved. i ; � j FROM:PIERCE COUNTY P( TO: 3604076305 EC 17, 1998 9:48AM #501 P.06 Ms. Lisa Kittilsby and Mr. Brad Barton December 16, 1998 Page 5 Addressing some of these concerns may eventually necessitate the filing of a major amendment to Case No. UP6-89 and preparation of a supplemental EIS. l Nate that other concerns are still being investigated, and thus were not addressed in this letter. Should you have'any questions, or would like to meet for further;discussions, please contact Ty Booth at (253) 798-3727. Engineering issues should be directed;to Mitch Brells at (253) 798- 3755. Wetland and fisheries issues should be directed to Dave Risvoid at (253) 798-7036. Sincerely, f Ty ooth A ; Associate Planner TYB.tf c: Mr. Bill Lynn, Attorney - Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, ialanca, Peterson & Daheim, P.L.L,C., 2200 First Interstate Plaza, P.O. Box 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 Ken Madsen, Councilmember Chuck Kleeberg, Director David Rosenkranz, Assistant Director Jill Guernsey, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Vicki Meuschke, Supervisor, Current Planning ` Sam Yekalam, Senior Planner , Kathleen Larrabee, Supervisor, Resource Management Dave Risvold, Environmental Biologist I Mitch Brells, Acting Supervisor, Development Engineering; Diana Ranes, Supervisor, Code Enforcement ! Steve Marek, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Steven Keller, Department of Fish and Wildlife Jim Fraser, Department of Fish and Wildlife Dave Pierce, Department of Natural Resources Scott Morrison, Department of Ecology Peter Moulton, Department-of Ecology j Murray Creek Group, PO Box 502, Roy,WA 98580 i Robert Brown, Nisqually Valley News, 207 Yehn Avenue,'P.O. Box 597, Yehn, WA 98597 j Parties.of Record of case no. UP6-89 . i I A C3 ML Wash On Assodatjo§g ;ting the Pack Northwest'onthe right tr&t Of Hall Passengers a CHARLES E. MOTs, President P.O. Box 70381 SORMO, WA 98107-8107 (206)783-3317 rG + ��„ _ - FAX(206)783-9109 O'M-Oii.'IO7#70vac@halcycn.com LLOYD H. FLIER, Executive Director 2516 Thurston Ave. NE OlYmpla, WA 98506-4878 (360)943-8333 5-4.1 v 9 -41 1: 3 3 8 33 �A \T6 12-13-98 02: 12PM POI Washington Association ••gEt _��°. the Pacific Northwest on Me right track." Qf Rail Passengers CHARLES E. MOTT, President low= // P.O. Box 70381 �� �GQ�RW1-h- Seattle, WA 98107-8107 (206)783-3317 FAX:(206)M-9109 J/ 4&,vC4 a-mail.innovac@hatcyan.com AZ4- rl �14sr / �j �y � LLOYD H. FLEM, Executive Director S 2516 Thurston Ave. ME Olympia, WA 98506-4878 (360)943-8333 FAX.•(360)MM M rW c v - O e C fU.k- / !�;116 CIISC-I ,Q yc��-- S QY'fJ/ �G�p— eYG(C� a 7C 2S;DD '7�'.- 21� �iC•f cle 0-0j �7 � 4�4�CrL a7� - 9 LO 12-13-98 02: 12PM P05 • Dt(:—i4'�-1'�'�ij 14�Gb ••i awvr�� a��.� a v. . r To: Amtrgk/W8s}tARPJCommuter Rail Coalition From: Bruce Agnew,Cascadia Protect Finxl�a Re: Cascadia Forum,December 15/16 at Seattle's Westin Hotel With the Holiday Season and busy schedules, we have formatted eine Cascadia Forum to allow you to attend day or lunch sessions without a two day eomrrt16"enl-see reghtrateon. In nadgershin with Washa$P we are of`'ertng a lizedial re�2 tnat�ion ofSZ5.00 for the GlscadirtlHie'h&egd lrail/Amtrak luncheeg nroeram on December Y6 National High Speed Rail expert and Northeast Corridor leader Jinn Repass,president of the Boston-based National Condors Initiative willgout• • Amtrak West CEO Gil Mallety • Washington Community, Trade and Economic Development director Tins Douglas • Vancouver, Washington Mayor Royce.Pollard It WashARP President Chuck Mott • Regfe Talgo rep"se stadve Jean Pierre Ruin in a two tiered discussion of Cascadia corridor economic development;population growth growth and the integration of a high speed passenger rail. Please circle the approrriate box on the registration form and return it ac soon as possible to Discovery-Institute. Cascadia is a program of Discovery Institute and the Vancouver,I3_C.-based Cascadia titute to promote closer public gcnc�y cooperation between Washington, yon and British Columbia in this bi-national region increasingly known as "Cascadia". Regional economist Glenn Pase$ll will review phase I of the "Connecting the Gateways and Trade Corridors" initiative linking Northwest trade corridors,border crossings;Amtrak,technology and non-capital barriers to freight mobility_ Our conference also marks the formation of a formal partnership With the Province of British Columbia on border issues,ecology and the Gateways Project- other Conference highlights_ 4.-- From Washington D.C.,Rep's.Jennifer Dunn will introduce Rep.Thomas Petri.chair of the House Transportation subcommittee to review TEA-21 border/corridor initiatives with local leaders,Washington and Oregon DOT's and Province of B.C. Finanec experts review federul highway cross-border transportation financing options and Canadian and U.S. tax laws. k. . Update on Bordet Immigration and Customs issues;1-5 trucking and technolobry; F- Blue-Ribbon Commission,Washington Transportation Alliance,I-5 Columbia River initiatives,and Vancouver B.C.Gateway air/raillmarinehtighway initiatives: Cascadia"'Main Street"livable regions and transboundary marine conservation <- Affordable housing and empowerment zones in metropolitan areas; t— Fraser Valley(B.CJ to Willamette Valley: livable region initiatives; F prelserving,.agricultural lands and river estuaries; t— Northwest Straits Commission and B.C.Washington Environment Council; Marine Conservation in the"inland sea"of Puget Sound and Georgia Straits; E-- Cascadia Salmon Trail Map Project- partnership with native peoples Next Cageadia sessions,Victoria,B.C.,May 6-9 -Eugene,November, 7.999 I? C�VRY 1402 Txatca AVE. Serra 400 SEATTLE,WA 48101 (206)x92-0401 Ext. 113 4 4 FAX(206)682-5320 www discovery,or& 4 4 bagneW@A i scovery ori 12-13-98 02: 12PM PO4 • North Sound Forum: Robert Tibbs, CaSvndia Pacific Foundation • Willamette Valley livability Forum, Susan Brody • Preserving agricultural lands: Dave Marshall, Fraser Basltt(B.C.)Co. • South Puget Sound Sustainability Forum- Mark Foutch • Affordable Housing:Peter Steinbrueck. Seattle City Council. 6:00 -7:30 pm General Reception Wednesday._December 16 8:30- 12:100 pm Concurrent Sessions: Session A. Part T - TransporUtionitrade EnIfttives update: B.C.. WA,and OR (8:30-10:30) moderators: Sm. Mary Margaret Haugen,chair,Setuue Transportation Commiltee, Mike Burton, executive officer, Metro(Pordand) • Doug Beighle,chair,Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation • Jim Warjone,chair, Washington Transportation Alliance • Kcith McPherson. Vancouver B.C. Gateway Council • ODOT/WSDOT Columbia River bridge initiative • Pacific Northwest International Trade Corridor; intelligent transportation systems for corridor freight movement,Joel Hiatt, FHWA, Don Brady, Transcar. Bart Citrus, ITS Washington Session A: Part 11: New opportunities for il=ncing interstate,international (10:45. 12:00) infrastructure projects; mixing traditional and innovative finance IVMuderator$: Rep. Renee Radcliffe, Washingron Legislative Transportation Committee Senator Susan Castillo. Oregon • Developments In federal credit programs for surface transportation: Report from Federal Highway Administration conference, Mirium Roskin, Roskin Consulting • Public/private financing in Washington, Jay Reich, Preston Gates &Ellls • B.C. approach to border/trade corridor initiatives: Doug 1 ibbins. senior vice president, B.C. Transportation Finance Authority Session S Trans-Boundary Marine Habitat Restoration: Marine Conservation (8.10-12:00) From Nanaimn to Nisqualiy Moderator: Dan Evans,Norrhwest Straits Commission • B.C. Washington EnvironmenWl Cooperation Council • Agricultural Practices and Clean Water: Sen, Marilyn Rasmussen, Washington Stare Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee + Rivet Estuaries and Salmon Habitat: Dave Sommers, Snohomish Co. • Building strong foundation for marine habitat: Mark Plun=ier, Dixvvvery Institute • Cascadia Salmon Trail Map, Celia Scharr, Orion Group and Assoc. 2 noon to 2.30 pin Luncheon program: The Cascadia Economic Vision and Livable Regions. Competitive or Compatible? • Bi-state Portland/Clark County metro area - growth and gateways: Royce Pollard,Mayor, Vancouver, WA • Tim Douglas,director, Washington Community Trade and Econondr. Dev. Special presentation: High Speed Rail in the U.S., Europe and Northwest Corridor Moderator: Bruce Chapman,Amtrak Reform Council, Presides(, Discovery institute • Rail .Advocacy and the Press: Breaking Through: Jim Repass, National Corridor Initiative • Northwest Rail Corridor: a private sector approach: Chuck Mott, WashARP • G11 Mallery,CEO Amtrak West • Jean Picrre Rutz, Rer{fe Talgo 12-13-9E 02: 12PM P02 iJtC:—YJy—ly�t1 14:26 9 I SCOVERY INSTITUTE 206 662 5320 P.02 Caseadia Conference and Main Street Forum Agenda current ascf 1V&% December 15 and 1 K wA5An Hotel Seattle, Wa bin, on For reservations at the Westin call 206.728-1000 or 1-8o0-W1;STIl J,'uesday. DCGCMh +1-1 mention "The Cascadia Corffereru e" •r, 8-30-8:00 am Welcome- Co-chairs: Mark Foutch, Senator Susan Castillo 8:40-9:00 am Connecting the Gateways and Trade Corridors Rollsnt Gleam Pascall, Regional Economist; Discovery Institute 9:00-12:00 pm Cascade Geteway/iMTC $ey to the Cascadia Corridor Moderators: Doug McCallum,Mayor, Surrey, B.C., Gordon Hogg, , White Rock 9:00-10:40 am Current Local Itnrnigrationd Customs Issues: brief overviews • TMT'C Border Business PI n Updatw Jim Miller, wCCOG • Expansion of PACE/CANVASS commuter program Gail Stewart, Revenue C da, Richard Smith, INS director • Pacific Highway facility; drug interdiction., carrier agreements: Gene Kervan, Blaine Port Director, Us Customs • Trucking& technology:Paul Landry, BC Trucking Axsociation • Tour bus clearances at the border. Tom Jaffa,NTA + Border/Section I10 Update; Mike Brennan,Bellingham Chamber + Amtrak service: a White Rock perspective; Mayor Hardy Staub 10:55 -11:15 am Washington D,CJOttawa update; a regional vision • Val Meredith,Member of Parliament, SurreyAV)ate Rock. B.C. • Rep.Jack Metcalf, United States Horse of Representatives 11:15-12:00 pm Caseadia legislative perspective • Rep.Clyde Ballard,Speaker of the House WA. • Rep. Frank Chopp,Speaker of the House (invited) • Sen. Eugene Timms,chair, Senate Ways and Means Committee,OR • Sea. Kate Brown, Senate Minority Leader OR 12.00 noon -2:30 pm Luncheon Program • Cam2&a Legislative Agenda: Senator Dan McDonald, Senate Minority Leader • Cascadia Mayors Council: Seattle Mayor Paul Schell + Joan Ratnsnond Cascadia Citizen's Award to Susan Brody ` Rep-'low Petri, US House Surface Transportation subcomm. chair • introduced by Rep, Jennifer Dunn • B.CJWnsbington Task Force Honourmble Mike Harcourt,farmer B.C. Premier, Cascadia Institute Honourable Michael Farnworth. B.C.Minister of Employmentllnvestownt Amtrak Cascades Service Update Aubrey Davis. Washington Transportation Commission Grace Crunican, Oregon Department of Transportation 2:45-5:00 pm Concurrent Sessions Session A: Connecting the Gateways and Trade Corridors; Moderatots: Ron Sims,King County Executive Rick MacKay,director, Central Oregon COG Senator Georgia Gardner. Senate Traruportadon Committee + TEA 21 BorderiTrade Corridor and Innovative F'inace initiatives: Paula Hammond, WSDOT Highways and Local Roads Grace Cnmican, ODOT, Ed Conroy,MLA and Parliamentary Secretary to the B.C.Ministry of Transport and Highway, Robert Brawn,:'Key-McDonald • Abbotsford, B.C.:emerging air freight. rail and highway gateway to Trans Canada-Brian Colder,National Land Consultants + Commuter Rail Update:Portland and the State of Deegan, Bob Krebs, OD07' • Cascadia Inland Corridor: Highway 97 and 395 connecting Canada to Klamath Falls,Clark Satre, G.M. Pacific Power,Bend OR Robert Fine,Central Okanagan B.C. Economic Development Council • North SoundNancouver Island Connecting Communities Project: Haney Walden,Skagit County Commissioner Sewflon B: Cascadia's Maim Street- Promoting Commerce and Conservation; Case Studies of Livability Initiatives Moderators:Chuck Clarke,EPA Northwest Regional Administrator Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council • Rail-Volution Update: Gina Whitehlll-Baziuk, Metro K%.LU REGISTRATIONFAVI Cascada Conference & Main Street Forum December 15-16, 1998 WeWn Hotel Seattle For Room&Contact The Westin at 206-728-1000 or 1.800-WEMN-1, mendots "Tf w4dfia Cen&rga"" (Circle) Day Two ( Dec. 16)Lunch.: Cascatlia,A amtrak,High Speed Rail-$25.00 0 Full Confemce and Reception-$135 O Day One RECEPTION ONLY -$25 O Day One Only and Reception-$90 Q Day Two Only with Lunch- $60 d Day One Only NO Reception-$80 O Day Two LUNCH ONLY - $35 O Day One LUNCH ONLY - $35 1 am registering for the following Workshops (Select One For Each Day) Day One MS OSession A OSession B Day Two 1 /16 OSession A OSession B (�f regivering more than one person, ,please attach a list or use separate forms far each) Name Title Campaay Address City State Zip Phone Fax Email- PAYMENT MTTHOD aj=ne comEU=z32 sECaW RECHMa�roN 1. Enclosed is my check for$ 2. Please charge my OVisa 0 Mastercard C3 AmEx #M Name On Card Expiration Date_ --- 3. Purchase Order Number# Purchase Order Contact Name&Phone Note: Copy of Purchase Order mast accompany registration form Send.Registration and Payments to the attention of Teresa Gonzales at D scovesy Institute fig : 1402 Third Ave.,Suite 400, Seattl0,WA 98101 206-6$2-5320 Phone: 206-292-0401 ext. 106 HmLag: tg@discovmy.org Web AdkM for current oda: www.discov .org/c8sc2tdiahttxig Refuxer$cannot be given after December 20th TOTAL P.04 12-13-98 02: 12PM P03 ! Tim r rant oldpus ■ officials I..involved m the talks.Yelm decided to z int€� R�tI enlargeiterequeatteiacludealinktotheL-5corridor. r o '�/� �!� It asked the railroad to Boast@ oreeIl the 17 miles of r e�/��¢1:i�� 'w ane rinuedJrornAI =}inefiozlY�Cel>ri�osl�lie iS6dAspartoftlede the;city _ _ would negotiate ai►agreedueattogiveENSF r6nniog 3411;Ai10 ft's Cd a`I[{t p muter rail linkup with the planned regional commuter rights on the-pputfiom Lakewood to Roy,so theYa- ere the r r rNisqually Line }r for:ifs=talsvith:$NSR ato6k—�nt1--��— — _ roadstplloouldaerve'thetwauulitarT beses,Garmennnjoets the Prairie Line BrRnToc�}':;_,; 15eraitro —• m er Yefinelsowant$6rstriglitofrefusaltogaprire,ifit'e +tlJewise T; r W sea a rail theindirsLrzral park`iri the rural • available in the future,-the.BNSFs Nsqually,Line, THE Hews THVIJ E'� �.••�'•+•n.i_; _e< community of about 2,40D in eastern Thurston Qoun- which runs firm N�squally,is�'huraton{jounty to; ty mold develop into a countywide industrial center. IhrPont,Lake�yo6d end Rhcama This libe also'oonnecta +rrt" .`"1r:' s. .a _ - The Ci$yatYelm is lakingile fir/t' 'L`hat's similar,but an a smaller scale,to what the to the BNSFinaia lige near Nisqually--: r Port of'Lhea and Pierce Cana are de Yebn may Trot ha eao m e the tfi Line bidstap to becoming:a bormtyprtd@ �k�.,. _,•_s: iridusErial' r ttq(ng til get Y I veloping at rural Frederickson,said Dennis Risdon, - 17-mile kne with steT34 AO grant.Thor once• r': �_: ,T ti._ jnrils�tff ttarlrmd, i lm�"the for the 7]nuatun Crnm was coa®d htrmmessAnalomn�t.manager �cing4 to 'The4fr ; _ Waal clrmdikityt6;tbalnterelnt tyEwnomigDevelopment1CoundL Roy-to-Yermptry for$2h0,UQD;o�cciielas td. r 1 t At leeat'8i s?th� Frederid um bas aBoeingCo.plantae welles three ABNS)!donat{¢a ofthe.lige to Yelm -' -' wood products manufacturers and other industries. tic.BNSF has done itelsevvUre,'sald RayAllred,a rar1-' s_.' - a• f ry aion that officals df Yelnn;'Roy,the> "Companies that contact us want access to rail ser- road plannerfarthe'state Dswtment of%ansporta= PmtofO pia rtlie'+lhiir�todCoun- vice;Risdrmsaid where wren$many places in the re tion. : '•': -:=, ;` _._,;_ _ <-:; tv ty EcdnoPrld IIet►elopdmeat Coima7 Bion with 300 acres and rail It_'s a real competitive ad City officials 6d bueir}esawpreaentat}vga:6re rau- a - Vii >-:•,:_ z{l_ c endhu'smaPB pjed�ile lave tievelpped tiously optamiatie thatsomethingcanbeworM outio• : during the 1iat-ye.w. .' e ones' F pekasrnan in Seattle,said the keep the line-open fb Yehrr ,_: " - - The city recently-obtalned ja furtherwith Yelm.$NSFie "BN$F hoe been ve odatig,'Said Joe $340,000 federal transportation still the of the line from Lakewood to Roy, Williams, resident �q m �P4 the 17,mife li>tiB �1Dg P p of te�Celm ChambaF•of Cam- W and maintain said gen although ids a alstw demand operation,°ho said, marcs. they've been very responsive.° Garmanri, Yelm oflicials'Sis`t ave p sr rLtiee,Garmsrw Wilcox Farms,almBS dairy Products lmbduoer in the Yelm public works dieacar. ,,�<�.- Yebn officials have told the said,when theyfcundoutlaetspringtbattherailroad . region,already Hass the.tine.Miles Sand&Gravel rHUHsronr' plannedtc abeAdon about4.5miles of line betweenRoy Co.is interested in,usingthe line ifYelmis able took �. io 13'srligtau'Narthem.Santa FeRatl• and Yelm.Yelm officials and business people won- tain it,Madan said. road that they would like to start dared if the railroad would allow Yelm to have the V Reach staff writer Rob Tucker at 263-597.8374 or < e�` tracks. by e-mail at AWp•tribnet,com s which Tuna fimm Yelm �► Then the City afRey,port and economic�velapment : airy lap/Tne News Nbuae Fort Lewis,McChord.Air l;orceBase and on to Laibewood. Ifthe raikmd agrees;Yelm would, ' have ral link between its SOD-am indust ial par}and the I-5 Corridor. Yelm even could develop a cow- Pleasesw&AbeekFo Post•ft'Fax Note 7671 Ofl1B+ ! pages • To��,� 471From r,-__ _ /1 CoJDept. Co. Dis—A O _ Phone q Phone M?z--,,_9.z-9.7 IQ 0 Fax p Fsz it o p r tiLV� ��5� TRPC SEPA NUMBER: TRPC-98-01 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Proponent: Thurston Regional Planning Council Description of Proposal: The proposal is to add five (5) new policies and amend one (1) existing policy to Tra_nsAC77ON 2020 -- The 1998 Regional Transportation Plan_U a P. This amendment will provide stronger policy support for passenger and freight rail transport as an integral component of the region's transportation network. Location of Proposal: Countywide. Section/Township/Range: Not applicable. Tax Parcel Number: Not applicable. Threshold Determination: The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does n2l ham a probable significant adverse impact upon the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(C). This decision was made after review by the Lead Agency of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public on request. Conditions: This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under 197- 11-340(2); the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. If conditions are added, deleted, or, modified during the 14 day'review period, a modified DNS will be issued. Otherwise, this DNS will become final after the expiration of the comment deadline and appeal period, if applicable. Jurisdiction: Thurston Regional Planning Council Lead Agency: Thurston Regional Planning Council Contact Person: Thera Black, Associate Planner Thurston Regional Planning Council 2404 Heritage Court SW, #B Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 786-5480 blackvt@co.thurston.wa.us Date of Issue: December 28, 1998 Comment Deadline: January 11, 19 9 Responsible Official: Harold Robertson, AICP, Executive Director Thurston Regional Planning Council 1 F 'b TRPC SEPA NUMBER: TRPC-98-01 + Appeals: Threshold determinations may be appealed pursuant to TCC 1709.160 if: (1) a written notice of appeal, meeting the requirements of TCC 17.09.160(4) is received by Thurston Regional Planning Council within fourteen calendar days of the date of issuance of the threshold determination or, if there is a comment period under WAC 197-11-340, within seven calendar days of the last day of the comment period; and (2) the person filing the appeal meets the requirements of TCC 17.09.160(2). Distribution List: Ray Allred, WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail Shelley"Badger, City of Yelm Leonard Bauer, City of Tumwater Dave Burns, City of Lacey Todd Carlson,WSDOT Planning& Programming-Svc Center Gary Demich, WSDOT Olympic Region Lynn Dosheery, Thurston County "Andrea Fontenot, Port of Olympia Paul Gamble, WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail Ken Garmann, City of Yelm Nick Handy, Port of Olympia Mike Harbour, Intercity Transit Martin Hoppe, City of Lacey Paul Horton, Energy-Outreach Center Lindy Johnson, Puget.Sound Regional Council Doug Johnston, City of Tumwater Bill Kappus, Federal Highways Administration Jim Longley, Lewis County Planning Department Dennis Matson, Thurston County Economic Development Council Theresa Morse, Federal Transit Authority Dale Rancour, Thurston County Dave Riker, City of Olympia Elizabeth Robbins, WSDOT Olympic Region Joe Scorcio, Pierce County Planning Department Rhodetta Seward, Intercity Transit Bonnie Simms, WA State Dept of Ecology Jim Slakey, WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail Todd Stamm, City of Olympia Craig Weckesser, Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority Bob White, Sound Transit Bill Wiebe, WSDOT Planning & Programming Svc Center Staff, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Council Staff, Pierce County Transit 57:sp\1298010.175 c 2 r �.tVTRnN1HMAL CHECKT- �°�r "USE BLACK ONLY" 1. Proponent (c): Thurston Regional Planning Council * * * * OFFICIAL USE ONLY Address: 2404 Heritage Court SW Ste B Jurisdiction: TC_, O_, L , Other Olympia, WA 98501 SEPA # (a): Phone: (360) 786-5480 Case# (b): 2. Representative: Thera Black Related Cases: Address: Same as above Date Received: By: Phone: Cama as above Submittal: Complete Incomplete 3.. Property Address or location (e): Coy wide. Information Requested: 4. 1/4 S/T/R (f): noes not apply. 5. Tax Parcel # (g): Does not apply. Proposal (d): 6. Total Acres:Does not apply. 7. Permit Type: Does not arply 8. Zomig: floes not apply. 9. Shoreline Environment: Toes not anpnly. 101. Water Body: Does not apply. * * * * OFFICIAL USE ONLY 11. Brief Description of the Proposal and Project Name: Amend planning poli cies in 'TransACTION 2020 The 1998 Regional_ Transportation Plan 11pdate' to ' supp9rt passenger and freight rail- mobility in Thurston County by adding langilage that promotes the retention and continued use of operating rail facilities as an important component of an integrated regional transWi don network 12. Estimated Completion Date: Adotion of plicy.am ndmant is scheduled for January, 1999, 13. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local-- including rezones): Thurston Regional_ Planning Council must approve the pr=s6d amendment through solution. 14. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: ' The intent of adding.w=rtive polis, language is to encourage the retention of orating rail lines rather than allowing them to be abandoned due to underutilization However, if any project . rifi proposals are generated in the future they_will have to be evaluated for environmental impacts at that time. 15. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 16. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Policy language amendment is scheduled for public h aring, review, and adoption by Thurston Regional Planning Council on Janu= 15, 1999 17. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS r Evaluation for To be Completed by Applicant Agency Use Only 1. Earth a. General description of the site: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment,.not a project proposal. However, the areas of Thurston County that currently support either passenger or freight rail tend to be flat or rolling. Any future project specific developments that may be supported by this policy language amendment would likely be located in those kinds of areas. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Does not apply. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Does not apply. d. Are there surface,indicators or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Does not apply. e. . Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Does not apply. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, is it likely that any future specific project proposals would increase use of existing rail facilities, not establish new railway corridors. This would minimize the need for any additional clearing or construction required to move more passengers or freight. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. 2 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Does not apply. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,;dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, if a specific project is generated as a result of this amendment that effectively diverts passenger or freight traffic from roads to rail, it should have a positive benefit on emissions relative to those same trips being made by car or truck. Special care would need to be taken in urban areas, such as downtown Olympia, if increased rail use creates excessive idling of cars stopped at crossings. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Does not apply. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Does not apply. 3. Water . a. Surfa (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names.' If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Does not apply. (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate'the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, specific project proposals generated as a result of this policy amendment are likely to result . in'increased use of existing railway corridors instead of creating new corridors. It is unlikely that any significant fill or dredge would be required. 3 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any specific project proposals resulting from this policy amendment will require surface.water withdrawals or diversions. (5) Does the proposal He within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Does not apply. This is a.policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any specific project proposals resulting from this policy amendment will involve any discharges of waste material to surface waters. b. Ground (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,,purpose, and approximately quantities if known. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any specific project proposals resulting from this policy amendment will involve withdrawal of, or discharge to, ground water. (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .;-agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. -Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any specific project proposals resulting from this policy amendment will involve the discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. C. Water Run-off (including stormwater) (1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, in known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? .If so, describe. Does not apply. This is a policy.language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is anticipated that specific projects generated as a result of this policy amendment will increase the use of existing railway corridors for passenger and freight movement, possibly diverting all or some of those trips from roadway travel. Any decrease in the demand for 4 new road%a r..1apacity represents a decrease in the of at of.stormwater runoff that would be generated by that new roadway capacity. The amount of impervious surface and its • associated stormwater runoff is less for railway corridors than for roadway corridors. (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,.ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is anticipated that any specific project proposals generated by this policy amendment will increase the use of existing railway corridors rather than establish new corridors. This should minimize surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. _deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain , Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,. other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b'. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is possible that increased use of existing railway corridors in the future may generate a need for increased vegetation control within the right-of-way in those corridors. Care will need to be taken to ensure that any herbicide application is done in accordance with County and State guidelines. C6 List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Does not apply. 5 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Does not apply. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Does not apply. 6. FEne= and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it willbe used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. b. . Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal.. However, it is unlikely that any specific project generated as a result of this policy amendment would affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However., any specific project proposals that may be generated as a result of this policy amendment would likely have a positive impact on the energy needs for the transport of passengers or freight. 7. Environmental Health a. Are`there are any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fine and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? H so, describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. 6 (1) Describe s_ ial emergency services that might 1 equired. • Not applicable. (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any specific project proposals generated as a result of this policy amendment are likely to produce increased frequency of trains, and the noises associated with their passing, along existing.railway corridors. (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is likely that any noises generated as the result of a specific project proposal submitted at a later date would be those associated with the passing of trains, including the sound of warning bells at gated road crossings. These are the same noises currently experienced along the railroad corridors. It is unknown how the hours of operation of possible increased train service in the future will correspond to current hours of operation. (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Does not apply. 8. Land and Shore ine Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any specific project proposals generated as a result of this policy amendment are likely to increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. Consequently, the current use of those potential future projects is rail transport. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Does not apply. This is.a,policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any future project proposal that may be generated as a result of this policy amendment will involve the conversion or use of agricultural lands. 7 C. Describe any struett _ on the site. _ Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposal generated as a result of this policy amendment is likely to increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. Hence, the only structures currently located on those corridors are those associated with rail transport. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposal-generated as a result of this policy amendment is likely to increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. Itis unlikely that this will necessitate the demolition of any structures not associated with rail transport. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposal generated as a result of this policy amendment is likely to increase the use of existing railway facilities. These regional facilities currently traverse multiple jurisdictions and zoning designations. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project specific proposal generated as a result of this policy amendment is likely to increase the use of existing railway facilities. Those regional facilities currently traverse multiple jurisdictions and comprehensive plan designations. g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any people will reside or work within the boundaries of any future project specific railway facility, unless the project establishes a new or expanded railway terminal or station facility. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any future project proposal generated as a result of this policy amendment will result in the displacement of people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any? Does not apply. 8 1. Proposed measurti� _. ensure the proposal.is compatible ."existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Incorporation of the proposed policy language into the Regional Transportation Plan helps to ensure that long-range regional transportation policies better support adopted local land use and transportation plans. It also supports recent actions on the part of City of Yelm to acquire a section of operational railroad from Yelm to Lakeview, (in Pierce County) and its request for federal funding for the Freight Access by Rail Corridor study. The iterative nature of the local and regional planning processes helped to identify.the need for this amendment, and will ensure that any future developments at either the local or regional levels are consistent with, and . supportive of, local comprehensive plans. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high-, middle-, or low-income housing. Does not apply. No units would be directly provided, either as a result of the policy amendment or any potential future project proposals. However, as passenger rail becomes a more viable transport mode in Thurston County communities, it has the potential to generate demand for additional housing — at all levels of affordability -- within walking proximity of railway stations. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether .high-, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. However, it is unlikely that any housing would be eliminated as a direct result of either the proposed policy amendment or any potential future project proposals. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal.exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future-proj ect proposal generated as*a result of this policy amendment is likely to result in increased use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. It is unlikely that any new structures would be built, unless a proposal called for a new train station or terminal facility. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any views would be altered or-obstructed as a direct result of either the proposed policy amendment or any potential future project proposals. C., Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic.impacts, if any: Does not apply. 9 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly L occur? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, since any future project proposals would likely result in increased use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities, it is anticipated that the type of light that might occur would be those associated with train transport- train headlights at night, and flashing red lights at road crossings -- above and beyond what is already generated by current use. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, light associated with any future project specific proposal that may be generated as a result of this policy amendment would be created for the purposes of safety and visibility. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. It is unknown if there are any off-site sources of light or glare that may affect any future project specific proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposals generated as a result of this policy amendment are likely to increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. These railway corridors traverse multiple jurisdictions throughout the region, and may be adjacent to one or more recreational opportunities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is unlikely that any future project.proposal generated as a result of this policy amendment would displace any existing recreational uses. C. Proposed measures to reduce or* control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the.project or applicant, if any: Does not apply. 10 13. Historic and Cultural P _�.rvation a. Are there any places or objects listed .on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment,.not a project proposal. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. . Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply. •14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposal generated by this policy amendment is likely to increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. Access to the existing street system for those facilities already exists. Where necessary, additional access linkages will be identified in future project proposals. It will be important to consider at-grade,road crossings and the necessary safety upgrades required as service frequencies increase over time. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is likely that any future project proposal that includes existing or new passenger station facilities will have transit access included as a part of the overall design. Transit is a key component of the region's integrated transportation strategy, and is seen as a critical link in establishing .effective multi-modal transportation connections. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposal that includes existing or new passenger station facilities will likely provide appropriate parking capacity for the type of facility. Parking management is a key component of the region's integrated transportation strategy. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, orimprovements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally. describe (indicate whether public or private). This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, any future project proposal generated by this policy amendment is likely to increase the use of existing, operational 11 railway corridors ar, _ ,cilities. Access to the existing stree _ stem.for those facilities already exists. Where necessary, improvements to existing roads or additional access linkages will be identified in future project proposals. It will be important to consider at-grade road crossings and the necessary safety upgrades required as service frequencies increase over time. e. Will the project use (or occur'in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is the intent of the proposed amendment to better support rail transport, including its role in the region's water-borne freight transport, ensuring that rail continues to be a.viable component of the region's integrated transportation network. Any project proposals generated as a result of this amendment are likely to increase the use of existing, operational railroad corridors and facilities. L How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, the intent of the proposed amendment is to better support rail transport in order to reduce.the number of vehicular trips per day, for both passenger and freight transport. Rail is a much more efficient mode of transportation than cars or trucks for many trip purposes. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,.if any: This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, the overall intent of the proposed amendment -- and the Regional Transportation Plan it is associated with -- is to reduce and control transportation impacts generated by both passenger and freight transport needs, and create a more integrated, sustainable transportation network. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. However, it is not anticipated that any future project proposal generated as a result of this amendment will necessitate increases in the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Does not apply. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Does not apply. This is a,policy language amendment, not a project.proposal. 12 b. Describe the utilil' . hat are proposed for the project, 1. itility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be o needed. Does not apply. This is a policy language amendment, not a project proposal. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the.lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Date Submitted: la-2e.9 Signature: /2"k i 13 To be Comule�ted by AFPkani, SLTPPLEMEI`T'I'AL SHEET FOR NONPROTECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Non-project proposals are those which are not tied to a specific site, such,as adoption of plans, policies, or ordinances. Because these questions are very general,it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. ♦♦♦A COPY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ATTACHED♦♦♦ 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There will continue to be growth in transportation needs in the future, and there are unavoidable impacts associated with that growth. Increased use of rail transport to meet as many of those needs as,possible is a responsible way to accommodate the region's and state's growth while reducing the impact of that growth. When the impacts of increased rail service for meeting some of the future growth in transportation needs are compared to current or reduced levels of rail service, there is actually the potential, with increased service, for reductions 'per unit transported' in: stormwater runoff; emissions to the air;. release of.toxic or hazardous substances; and production of noise. Relying on the region's road network to accommodate growth in travel demand is likely to generate more air, noise, toxic, and water pollution impacts than if some of that growth is accommodated via rail transport. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: No specific measures are proposed in the policy amendment to avoid or reduce such increases noted above. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendment is unlikely to directly affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life since any projects it may generate will seek to increase the use of existing, operational railroad facilities and structures. If the amendment is successful in its support of increased rail transport it may indirectly benefit the natural environment by reducing the demand for increased roadway capacity and its associated environmental impacts. 14 Proposed measures irotect or conserve plants, animab h, or amarine life are: No specific measures are proposed in the policy amendment to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? If the proposed amendment is successful in supporting increased rail transport there is likely to be a reduction in the depletion of energy or natural resources relative to the increase in passenger and freight rail transport. Rail transport is more energy-efficient than either car or truck transport when measured on a 'per unit transported' basis. Diverting as many of those increased trips onto rail and off of the roadways will result in a slower depletion of non-renewable resources than if there was not an increase in rail use. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: No specific measures are proposed to protect or conserve energy and natural resources in the policy amendment other than what is implied in the effort to shift as much transport from roadway modes to rail. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? The proposed amendment would not have-a direct impact on environmentally sensitive areas, etc, since it would likely generate project proposals that increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. If the proposed amendment is successful in supporting increased rail transport it may have a positive, indirect impact on these sensitive areas by reducing the.demand for future roadway capacity and its associated environmental impacts. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No specific measures are proposed in the policy amendment to protect such resources. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed amendment is unlikely to have a direct impact on land and shoreline use, since it would likely generate project proposals that increase the use of existing, operational railway corridors and facilities. If the proposed amendment is successful in supporting increased rail transport it may have a positive, indirect impact on land and shoreline uses by reducing. the demand for future roadway capacity and encouraging compact urban development in the vicinity of passenger railway stations. This is consistent with existing comprehensive plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No specific measures are proposed in the policy amendment to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts, other than those inherent in the effort to make better use of rail transport and reduce dependence on roadway transport modes. 15 6. How would the`____,posal be likely to increase demand'" _`i transportation or public services and utilities? The intent of the proposed amendment is to better support rail transport in Thurston County. If the policy language is successful in its support, in the future there will be increased demand for both passenger and freight rail transportation in Thurston County, increased service frequencies and better inter-county connections, more frequent and reliable service to local manufacturers and shippers, and better integration of rail into the region's overall transportation/land use strategy. It is also likely to generate increased demand for transit connections to passenger rail facilities, as well as a new interest in intra- county rail connections and the land uses supported by that type of rail service. When compared to the option of = increasing rail service, the proposed amendment may actually help offset the demand for future roadway capacity: directly via better alternatives to driving and trucking; and indirectly via rail-supportive land uses that reduce reliance on driving. Project specific proposals that are generated in the future will address measures specific to these conditions as appropriate. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No specific measures are proposed in the policy amendment to reduce or respond to increased demands on transportation or utilities. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There is no conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment associated with the proposed policy amendment. 57:sp\1298w710.175 16 2. Public Transportation The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency .. Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires the Regional Transportation .. Plan to consider "methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such service." The State Growth Management Act and local Comprehensive Plans seek to achieve compact urban development with increasing densities. Transit is therefore an important alternative to automobiles, especially in high density areas with heavy traffic congestion, where adding road capacity would have significant negative impacts and be cost prohibitive. Long bus trips resulting from slow bus running speeds and long waiting times have been cited as major disincentives to transit use. This Plan recognizes that reliable and frequent services are pivotal to making transit a viable alternative to driving. Such services will help reduce the need to construct costly roads and their associated impacts. GOAL: Provide effective public transportation services to help reduce car dependence in the region and serve the needs of people who rely on public transportation. 2.1 Transit System Expansion Increase transit service over time in response to infill, higher density development and growth.. Maximize system productivity by emphasizing service in the Core Areas and High Density Residential Corridors (see Map 6). Where appropriate, use smaller buses to minimize impact on residential neighborhoods and roads. Continue to explore the feasibility of providing high capacity transit (HCT) services between Thurston County and the Central Puget Sound Region. 2.2 Transit System Reliability Ensure the transit system is a viable alternative to the private automobile whenever possible. Encourage capital and Transportation System Management investments to improve the reliability, safety, and attractiveness of the transit system, especially in the Core Areas and along High Density Residential Corridors. These could include High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit only lanes near intersections for buses, priority signals, and park and ride lots. 17 rf 2.3 Transit Operating Speed Develop and work toward a transit operating speed goal in coordination with local jurisdictions. The goal will trigger discussion of strategies on how to maintain reliable transit services. In some cases system improvements are necessary to give transit and carpools/vanpools a travel time advantage. These improvements should not unreasonably degrade the overall LOS for other transportation modes including freight movement. 2.4 Improve Service to Attract More Riders Develop a transit system that attracts-more people, especially in urban areas, to use public transportation. Special care should be taken to meet the transit needs of elderly, disabled, young, and low-income citizens. 2.5_ System Coordination - Assess the need for expanded and coordinated service connections to other activity centers within the county and between Thurston County and activity centers of adjacent counties. 2.6 .Intermodal Coordination Integrate the regional public transit system with other modes of transportation including auto, bicycle, pedestrian, rail, and other modes as they.develop. This might include secure bike racks at park and ride lots and on buses, and transit transfer points at rail stations. 2.7 Park and Ride Lots Expand existing park and ride lots and develop new sites over time as needed (see Map 7 for possible locations). Implement appropriate measures to deter vandalism and theft and to ensure that sites are safe and conducive to effective use. 18 s 2.8 Rail Service Explore the options for operating short line rail in the region including tourist operations. Ideas for future freight and passenger rail operations should be examined by the Port, Intercity Transit, and private rail operations organizations to determine their viability. 2.9 Other Forms of Public Transportation Explore high capacity transportation options as well as increased Amtrak and vintage streetcar/trolley operations wherever they are viable. The successful creation of core areas as major destinations and increased densities in other parts of the urban area will set the scene for possible future rail. While these alternatives are more costly than bus transit now, they may prove to be a good option for some areas. 2.10 Private Participation Encourage local jurisdictions to implement funding mechanisms, including private participation and joint development of transit facilities and services such as transfer centers, park and ride sites, and private subscription bus service. 2.11 Public Education Look for opportunities to promote transit as part of on-going public education. For example, include transit and rideshare information in public meeting notices when meetings are held within service areas. 2.12 Commuter Rail Explore the viability of commuter rail connections to the Regional Transit Authority's `Sounder' rail line in Lakewood. 19 . 5. Freight Transportation ,. «,< �< ,x GOAL: Promote further development and coordination of facilities for the movement of freight to maintain Washington's strong trade- related economy. Ensure a system compatible with the movement of people and freight. Truck Freight 5.1 Maintain the efficiency and level of service of the freight movement network, and improve where needed. Give a high priority to improving congested roadways with high freight use. 5.2 Coordinate with the Port of Olympia, the Mottman Industrial Park, the Northeast Lacey industrial area, as well as farm, timber harvest, and other local manufacturers to ensure freight access routes are suitably designed and maintained for regular use by heavy trucks as well as for use by the other transportation modes. Rail Freight 5.3 Support continued raff freight trwisportation using retention, ex=sion, and continued use of existing rail facilities. eoordinate wifli the Port of Olympia mid other local jurisdictions involved to ensme - �il access, rotites iremaill OMI fol negular use:that support regional transoortation goals. 5A Explore the possibility of ex=ding mainline =acity and I-5 mobility by developing an alternative corridor dedicated to the movement of interregional freiffht by rail, as envisioned in the Freight Access by Rail (EAR) Corridor. 5 Support inter jurisdictional efforts to secure state funding for improvements that enhance freight rail access and capacity, including ul2amdes to facilities serving the Grand Mound Industrial Park. 5A Promote freight rail access as an important tool in retaining and growing Thurston County's employment base. vie '25 10.6 Coordinate with Washington State.Department of Ecology and.the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority in air quality monitoring and modeling. Where posible. identify proactive mitigation measures that alleviate-air qty, impacts likely to trigger nonconformance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 10.7 Local jurisdictions should actively pursue environmental retrofit of roadway infrastructure that damages sensitive habitat, such as culverts that interfere with salmon spawning areas. V 7 33 e� Thre FA4 Freight Access by Zak The FAR Corridor is a numerous public sector jobs at the U.S. Army's Fort partnered effort to Lewis and in the state capital. rehabilitate abandoned rail facilities to Class 4 Cities in the Thurston rail operation, and region have adopted ' KN significantly improve - F strong growth freight and passenger 1 management policies -" � movement in the South that promote Puget Sound region. development within existing urban areas. The Cities of Yelm and The greatest challenge for densification,however,is Tacoma have acquired accommodating the corresponding increase in surplus rail line from traffic. Proposed commuter rail service along the Burlington Northern/ current freight rail line would act as a catalyst for Santa Fe to preserve rail access. Combined and densification,by providing an alternative upgraded, they offer an exceptional opportunity to transportation network through the urban core. improve rail and highway congestion in the I-5 corridor from Tacoma south toward the Portland The FAR corridor is being developed through a environs. partnership of thirty state, local, private sector and advocacy entities.The Thurston Regional Planning Although interstate Council is allocating improvements are _ $340,000 of regional crucial,alone they a STP funds to assist in will not be able to %. - corridor acquisition. meet freight capacity needs.For As exurban develop- less than the cost of two lane miles of interstate ment reaches out from construction in this area,the FAR Corridor will the Seattle/Tacoma provide almost 55 miles of class 4 rail facilities to metropolitan area to the _ which interregional freight shipping can be diverted. independent Olympia environs,the blending Relieving freight traffic on the single main line will of growth and economic allow the southerly extension of the RTA commuter activities will be greatly rail project currently underway in Seattle and influenced by the way Tacoma. Commuter rail service would then link common transportation Seattle to affordable exurban areas, as well to needs and issues are addressed. QClallam "r © Snohomish o � �, ,��.� 104 r yry J BNSF - YyS,A r Jefferson r ' sap a „e Port King U ,r 7e iti Mason4s; m toe ter Grays Y Shelton Harbor 12 470 Q Aberdeen O1 to ,2 Monte I'sS10 ® 1 Pierce h T Thurston TE 69) ,2 s Centralia South Ben O �� Chehalis ° G O See � 122 Lewis Pacific 5 4 505 tY i ah kum Cowlitz Skamania ty r i f r�-• Cath)aIDe o 411 W 4 N Freight Access by Rail (FAR) Corridor UP-Union Pacific USG-United Statins Govt TE-Tacoma Eastern W CO-Weyerhaeuser Co. BT-Ballard Terminal CMER-Curtis Mibum and Eastam BNSF-Burlington Northam PSAP-Puget Sound and Pacific FAR Corridor 7o 0 io Miles