Document Kennewick_doc_90ada2863b

Action Plan Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Kennewick, Washington 13 April 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ii Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization City Council’s Charter Involve public participation in the development of an economic and urban development strategy for revitalizing the Bridge-to- Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) area to capitalize on the momentum created by the construction of the WSDOT roundabouts and the Port of Kennewick’s acquisition and pending project to redevelop the Duffy’s Pond area. BB/RR Task Force Mayor – Steve Young Mayor Pro Tem – Sharon Brown Former Mayor – Thomas Moak City Council – John Hubbard Port of Kennewick – Tim Arntzen Planning Commission – Bob Spaulding Parks & Recreation Commission – Hank Sauer Auto Dealer Association – Ken Williamson Other Agency Participants BNSF Railway – Jeep Labberton, Terminal Manager US Army Corps of Engineers – David Morbach, Realty Specialist Ben Franklin Transit – Timothy Fredrickson Washington State Department of Ecology – Case, Shoreline Planner Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation – Don Sampson Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) – Tim Dalton UDAT Member – Skip Novakovich City Staff City Manager – Bob Hammond Assistant City Manager – Kevin Ferguson Director of Special Projects – Russ Burtner Economic /Community Development Director – Jeff Kossow Interim Planning Manager – Larry Frazier Initial Project Manager – Ferdouse Oneza Planner – Anthony Muai Administrative Assistant – Terri Wright Consultants Team Leader – Tom Beckwith FAICP, Beckwith Consulting Group Architect/Urban Designer – Don Stastny FAIA, FAICP, Architects Community Development – Steve Price, Front Street Partnership Economist – Eric Hovee, ED Hovee & Company Traffic Engineer – Mike Read PE, Northwest Transportation Landscape Architect – Patrik Dylan, ECCOS LLC Environmental Scientist – Jeff Parsons, Herrera Environmental Business Development – Nancy Jordan, Nancy B Jordan Associates Public Opinion Surveys – GMA Market Research ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Contents Organization 1 1: Assign action program and project implementation responsibilities 1 2: Resolve agreements with HDKP, Port, and other participants 4 Economics 4 3: Recruit/retain target markets 4 4: Expand the Main Street program 7 Promotion 8 5: Update and expand city/HDKP websites 8 6: Install historic district, gateways, and wayfinding signage 10 Design standards 13 7: Update/refine zoning designations 13 8: Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use 16 Design/development - infrastructure 18 9: Fill/soft armor select river shorelines areas for fish habitat 18 10: Install stormwater swale/river levee enhancements 21 11: Acquire/develop BB/RR parks 22 12: Reconfigure road network 26 13: Construct streetscape enhancements 31 14: Construct sidewalks, curbs, and gutters 34 15: Reconfigure transit routes 36 Design/development – catalytic projects 38 16: Acquire/develop Public Market and Excursion Train 38 17: Acquire/issue RFP for incubator development 40 18: Issue RFP for private development 42 19: Review/resolve master plan for Port of Kennewick’s Duffy’s Pond properties 43 Tables Implementation matrix 2 Graphics Proposed catalytic projects 3 Proposed gateways/wayfinding signage 11 Proposed land use 15 Illustrative development – mixed use prototype – low density 17 Proposed shoreline enhancements 19 Swale/levee enhancements – typical section 21 Proposed parks 23 Proposed off-road multipurpose trail network 24 Proposed road network 27 Proposed railroad network 28 Proposed on-road bikeway network 29 Proposed streetscapes 32 Illustrative streetscape 33 Proposed on-road walkway network 35 Proposed transit network 37 Proposed excursions 39 Illustrative developments –Duffy’s Pond Master Plan Proposal 44 Implementation projects 46 Appendix A: Stakeholder interviews A-1 B: Internet survey B-1 C: Public workshops C-1 D: CFP financial strategies D-1 E: What are design/development competitions and why should we use them for the BB/RR plan? E-1 F: What is 63:20financing and why should we consider using if for the BB/RR plan? F-1 G: Prototypes G-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Following is a summary description of the major action plan strategies determined to be important in effectively implementing the Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization. The action strategies represent the consensus opinions of the BB/RR Task Force as well as the results of the stakeholder interviews, public workshops, internet, and mail-out/phone-back surveys. The consensus opinion is that these actions are critical to the effective realization of the BB/RR Revitalization’s goals. The strategies are grouped according to subject matter and not necessarily priority and are listed in an analytical sequence beginning with: 1) Organization, 2) Economics, 3) Promotion, 4) Design Standards, 5) Design/Development – Infrastructure, and 6) Design/Development – Catalytic Projects. Organization 1: Assign action program and project implementation responsibilities The proposed programs and projects involved in this BB/RR Revitalization cannot be undertaken or completed solely with the resources and time available to city staff and officials. Nor should city staff and officials be solely responsible for coordinating the multifaceted approach and all of the multiple public, nonprofit, and private agencies and organizations that must be involved in implementing the action items necessary for the BB/RR Revitalization. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will work with City Council to:  Continue City Council’s charter – whereby the Economic/Community Development Department and the Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) acts as the BB/RR’s principal economic and urban development advocate and coordinator of the actions item involved in the implementation of the BB/RR Revitalization.  Appoint key point persons or project facilitators – from within HDKP to focus on the specific actions involved in each action subject, and to allow participation by other public, nonprofit, and private community organizations, interested groups, and individuals in specific projects unique to each group.  Coordinate action plan implementation programs and projects - to be accomplished by the city, HDKP, and other facilitating/catalyst agents to include the Port of Kennewick, US Corps of Engineers, Umatilla Tribe, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Ben Franklin Transit, Housing Authority of the City of Kennewick, Benton County Historical Museum, Council of Governments (COG) Economic Development Council (EDC), TRIDEC – Economic Development Council, Tri-Cities and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Auto Dealers Association, and other public, non-profit, and private participants interested and appropriate.  Engage the public – on the economic, promotion, design, design/development – infrastructure, and design/development – catalytic projects and the impact implementation of the BB/RR Revitalization will have on the economic well being and development of the city-at-large.  Resolve funding strategies – using public, nonprofit, and private monies necessary to effectively finance each and all of the action items listed herein.  Monitor implementation – to ensure the actions proposed in this action plan are effectively realized by the all the public, nonprofit, and private parties participating in the BB/RR Revitalization. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department ---PAGE BREAK--- Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization 13 April 2010 Participants 1. Kennewick City Council A=approval role I 2. Economic/Community Development & Parks & Public Works Departments L=lead management role I I 3. Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) P=participant role I I 4. Port of Kennewick I I I I I I I I 5. US Corps of Engineers I I I I I 6. Umatilla Tribe I I I I I I 7. WA Dept Fish & Wildlife & Ecology I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8. Ben Franklin Transit I I I I I I I I 9. Housing Authority City of Kennewick I I I I I I I I I 10. Benton County Historical Museum I I I I I I I I I I 11. Council of Governments (COG) Economic Development Council (EDC) I I I I I I I I I I I 12. TRIDEC - Economic Development Council I I I I I I I I I I I I 13. Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chamber of Commerce I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14. Auto Dealers Association I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15. BB/RR property owners I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16. Lenders/realtors/developers I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17. Public - city residents l l l l l l l I I I I l I I I I I l l l l l l l I I I I l I I I I I Implement l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l in year Objectives - not necessarily in rank order l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0-1 2-6 Cost (000) Funding sources Organization 1 Assign action plan responsibilities A L P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P X Ptax, 2 Resolve joint ventures w/HDKP/Port/Private A L P P P X Ptax Economics 3 Recruit/retain target markets A L L P P P P P P P X X Ptax, HDKP, Port, TRIDEC, Chambers,COG 4 Expand Main Street program to BB/RR A L L P P P P P P P X X MainSt, DRP, TMP, PBIA, CDBG, 108, Promotion 5 Expand city/HDKP website outreach A L L P P P P P P P P X Ptax, HMTax, TMP, HDKP, TRIDEC, Chamber 6 Install gateways/wayfinding signage A L P P P X Ptax, HMTax, REET, TMP, HDKP, CRF Design Standards 7 Update/refine zoning designations A L P P P P P P P X CTED-GMP, Ptax 8 Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use A L P P P P P P P X CTED GMP Pta 8 Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use A L P P P P P P P X CTED-GMP, Ptax Design/Development - Infrastructure 9 Fill/soft armor river shoreline for fish habitat A L P A A L P X X Centennial, ALEA, RCO, Ptax, Umatilla, CRA 10 Install swale/levee enhancements A L P A P A P P X X SDUFee, Ptax, DOE, RCO, TIF/LCF, Prvt, CRA 11 Acquire/develop parks A L P L A P A P P X X Ptax, REET, HMTax, ALEA, RCO, Parkfee, Prvt, CDBG,108, CRA 12 Reconfigure road network A L P P P P P P X X FAUS, UATA, Ptax, MVFTax, Trafficfee, Late-comer, CRA 13 Construct streetscape enhancements A L P P P P P X X REET, Ptax, MVFTax, LID, TBD, PBIA, Late-comer, CRA 14 Construct sidewalks, curbs, gutters A L P P X X Ptax, MVFTax, TIB, CDBG, LID, STUfees, 108, CRA 15 Reconfigure transit routes A P P P L P X Ben Franklin Design/Development - Catalytic Projects 16 Acquire/construct public market/train A L L P P P P X X HMTax, REET, Ptax, CDBG, 63:20, HDKP 17 Acquire/issue RFP incubator development A L P P P P P P P X X Ptax, CDBG, HAEIF, Prvt, COG, EDA, SBA 18 Issue design/develop RFP competitions A L P P P P P P P X Ptax, CDBG, HOME, TIF/LRF,Prvt, LITHC 19 Review/resolve Port's Duffy's Pond Plan A L L A A A P P P P P P P X Ptax 108 CDBG Section 108 Loan Funds LID Local Improvement District 63:20 Lease-to-Own using 63:20 nonprofit financing LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credits ALEA ROC Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act MVFTAX Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax CDBG Community Development Block Grant ParkFee GMA Park Impact Fee CDBG Community Development Block Grants PBIA Parking & Business Improvement Area COG Small Business Assistance Port Port of Kennewick funds CRA Community Renewal Act Prvt Private developer contribution or other funds CRF Community Revitalization Finance Ptax General Fund Property Tax DOE Department of Ecology Centennial Fund RCO Wa State Recreation and Conservation Office (ROC) grants DRP Washington State DofC Downtown Renewal Program REET Real Estate Excise Tax EDA Economic Development Administration SBA Small Business Administration GMP Washington State DofC Growth Management Planning grant SDUFee Stormwater Management Utility fee HDKP Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership funds TBD Transportation Benefit District HMTaxTourism Hotel/Motel Tax TIB Transportation Improvement Board grants HOME CDBG Program TIF/LRF Tax Increment Finance/Local Community Finance Late-coLate-comer improvements charge Trafficfee GMA Traffic Impact Fee ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed catalytic projects 1 Duffy’s Pond Properties et al Proposed catalytic projects 2 Jesernig Properties et al 3 Incubator Complex 4 Public Market/Excursion Train 5 Interpretive Center 3 1 2 4 5 Columbia Drive Columbia Drive Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Gum St ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Participants  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  US Army Corps of Engineers  Umatilla Tribe  WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife  Ben Franklin Transit  Housing Authority City of Kennewick  Benton County Historical Museum  Council of Governments EDC  TRIDEC  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chamber of Commerce  Auto Dealers Association  BB/RR business and property owners, residents, and citizens-at-large Funding Kennewick Economic/Community Development staff facilitation and monitoring activities will be funded with:  General Fund property taxes (Ptax)  Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) Growth Management Planning (GMP) planning and project grants 2: Resolve agreements with HDKP, Port, and other participants The BB/RR catalytic projects require staff coordination and City Council approval prior to other parties initiating action – particularly the Port of Kennewick’s proposals for Duffy’s Pond, Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership’s development and operation of the Public Market, and the city’s conduct of RFPs for design/development competitions on key private properties, among others. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will:  Resolve HDKP development/operation of the Public Market – including land lease particulars of city’s purchase of BNSF parcels fronting on Benton Street, method of design/delivery and financing of Public Market building and site improvements, tenant and promotional activities programs, and all other particulars.  Resolve Port of Kennewick’s Master Plan for Duffy’s Pond – including proposed particulars concerning pond buffer width and placement, surface street access from Columbia Drive and Washington Street, new building placement and streetscape elements on Columbia Drive, trail location and development around pond and to Sacagawea Heritage Trail, Columbia Drive and Washington Street, and publicly-accessible park location, improvements, and financing.  Resolve RFPs for design/develop competitions – including property sales prices and option agreements, mandatory and optional design criteria, jury process and particulars, developer team honorariums, and all other particulars with participating property owners. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Dept Participants  Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership  Port of Kennewick  BB/RR business and property owners Funding Economic/Community Development staff participation in resolving agreements will be financed with:  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax) Economics 3: Recruit/retain target markets New employment and investment opportunities are created with traditional business outreach and recruitment efforts conducted by TRIDEC – Economic Development Council (EDC), Port of Kennewick, Washington State Department of Commerce, and others. These organizations have been very successful developing large industrial parks and sites, marketing the area’s existing ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization “educated labor force” and institutions, and attracting major state and national companies to the Tri-Cities area. However, the majority of new businesses and employment opportunities in the local, state, and national economies are created by small business start-ups that are spun off from existing local businesses, the result of second or late-life careers, a household member reentering the labor force on a part-time basis, or wholly new enterprises started by recent college or technical school graduates. Start-up small businesses account for over 80% of all new employment and frequently provide the cutting-edge technology, products, and services that grow into larger companies and/or provide the inspirations for economic restructuring, diversification, and quality. Small businesses are started by entrepreneurs or the “creative workforce” - individuals who have an interest and propensity to try new things and take risks. This attribute is proving to be an increasingly important ingredient in a community’s ability to attract and develop new businesses and investments. Entrepreneurs or the “creative workforce”, particularly those that start-up new business ventures, tend to be footloose often selecting a location to initiate their business enterprise based on personal preferences defined by quality of life factors as well as the extent to which they are recruited and supported by interested communities. If Kennewick is to attract a “creative workforce” and thereby new independent business enterprises, it must initiate outreach programs geared to finding, recruiting, and locating creative entrepreneurial talent – especially in the destination retail, high technology enterprises, and other niche activities that fit the city and BB/RR area. And, if Kennewick is to be attractive to uncommitted entrepreneurial talent, it must market and further develop the quality of life factors of most interest to such individuals including the city’s unique educational, recreational, community, and residential attributes. While start-up small businesses account for over 80% of all new employment they suffer a high mortality rate in the first 5 years of the business due to lack of business planning, lack of business or start-up capital, or the inability to find and finance suitable building space. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department and HDKP will to:  Identify key entrepreneurial prospects - for the BB/RR and downtown district including profiles, contact information, promotional materials, and recruitment strategies for:  Multi-modal transportation dealers – including sales and service of electric cars, motor bikes, scooters, mopeds, bicycles, kayaks, and other forms of transportation to transform auto row into a multi-modal transportation hub for the region.  Mixed-use project developers – of mixed-use projects to the BB/RR sites of opportunity.  Mixed income mixed-use housing occupants – including urban households (single adults, family starters, empty nesters, and seniors) migrating into or within the region for mixed-use projects on BB/RR sites of opportunity.  Retail tenants – including retail businesses and activities of interest to Columbia Drive and the downtown district storefronts and proposed mixed-use projects.  Artists and art galleries – including working artists, instructors, galleries, and related entrepreneurs to the ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization proposed live/work and mixed-use projects on BB/RR sites of opportunity.  Incubator and start-up businesses – including start-up businesses and entrepreneurs from surrounding city and region for the proposed incubator buildings to be developed on Railroad Avenue including provisions for start-up grants and SBA loans.  Public market vendors – including farmers’ market vendors, wine and food vendors, artist workshops and galleries, performance artists and instructors, and other activities to be housed in the Public Market to be developed on BNSF property on Benton Street.  Excursion train operator – including excursion train operators as well as destination facilities, programs, and operators for a series of dinner, mystery, sightseeing, winery, and other train tours of the region from the BNSF property on Benton Street.  Compile supporting market information – including listings of available properties and building spaces along with terms, contacts, descriptions, and other referral information for integration into marketing websites.  Provide business planning and start-up capital assistance – to support small business planning, capital and investment planning, workforce training, and other small business development services.  Create a capital investment fund – to include a large portfolio of no and low interest loans available from local lending institutions and organizations devoted specifically to small business retention, start-up, and recruitment outreach efforts.  Conduct cold call contacts – for the above using combinations of e-mail and e-newsletter, mail, telephone, and in- person interviews to determine information needs, reactions, interests, and competitive assessments.  Follow-up – interested recruits by providing tours, promotional events, analysis, and other finalizing coordination with property or business owners, financial sources, and networking with other entrepreneurial individuals and enterprises in Kennewick.  Debrief – cold call contacts and recruits to assess marketing materials, marketing positioning, property and business rates, and other information with which to refine the BB/RR and downtown brand, promotional materials and activities, and market offerings, etc. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department Participant  Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership  Port of Kennewick  Kennewick Auto Dealers Association  Council of Governments EDC  TRIDEC  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Funding Economic/Community Development staff support for market materials and outreach programs, building inventory, cold call, and debriefing tasks will be funded by financed from:  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax)  Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership  Port of Kennewick  TRIDEC  other participant programs. The local capital investment fund will be financed by:  EDA Small Business Administration (SBA) programs,  Washington State Commerce Small Business Resources (SBR)  Business Finance (BF)  Community Development Finance (CDF)  Business Loan Portfolio (BLP)  Regional Micro-enterprise Development Grant Funds  General Fund property taxes (Ptax)  local lenders under the Community Investment Act (CIA) ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization 4: Expand the “Main Street” program Kennewick has significant and unique historic commercial and industrial architecture clustered in the downtown area along Kennewick Avenue and between Dayton and Washington Streets that represent valuable assets to the community. These buildings and the district at large are in good usable condition and generally occupied by viable enterprises. HDKP was formed to undertake and sponsor the activities involved in the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Washington State’s Main Street program. As such, the district has been identified, promoted, and recognized for its potential. Some key buildings in the district have been renovated, upgraded, and retrofit to house emerging new retail and entertainment opportunities. Successful downtown areas are a result of comprehensive improvement programs combining the Main Street Four-Point Approach. The Main Street approach encourages economic development within the context of historic preservation in ways appropriate to the emerging marketplace. The approach advocates the rebuilding of traditional downtown districts using their unique assets – distinctive architecture, pedestrian-friendly environment, personal service, local ownership, and a sense of community. The Main Street Four-Point Approach involves: 1) organization, 2) economic restructuring, 3) promotion, and 4) design – that combine to address the downtown’s needs since no single approach by itself will sufficiently rejuvenate the district. Successful programs require cooperation, coordination, and often joint ventures between city government, a viable sponsor like HDKP, and private businesses and property owners to be effective. To succeed, Main Street programs must show visible results that come from completing programs and projects – regardless of how small the project efforts may appear in the beginning. However, to be fully effective, the downtown effort should be anchored with other city assets, in this case including the public facilities and parks in the Civic Center to the south, the BNSF depot and potential Public Market to the north, and ultimately the Columbia River, Duffy’s Pond, and the sizable potential population that can live in a revitalized BB/RR neighborhood west and within walking distance of the downtown. In fact, HDKP includes this larger support area as well as the historic downtown proper within its charter. Action Therefore, the HDKP will:  Expand the Main Street program model and HDKP activities – to include promotion, business development, advertising, parking, design, economic restructuring, and other related activities and interests to the larger BB/RR area including Columbia Drive and auto row, and the industrial startup potentials along Railroad Avenue. HDKP will sponsor and coordinate permanent committees dedicated to business recruitment efforts, promotions, and design improvements within the larger BB/RR/Downtown/Civic Center area on a full- time basis.  Expand downtown activities and special events program – to include coordination with farmers’ market vendors, key seasonal community and tourist events, and special sales activities of interest to merchants, community organizers, residents, and tourists of the larger BB/RR area including Columbia Drive auto row.  Initiate additional special events that are keyed to unique Kennewick historical occurrences – like Native American settlements, early agriculture developments, river steamboat landings, railroad development and services, winery establishments, and like events of historical importance to community residents and of interest to tourists. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization  Expand the façade improvement program – to upgrade appearances, visual quality, and streetscape interest on Columbia Drive and the on Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Streets between BB/RR and the downtown district. Implement building design standards that define a palette for streetscape furniture, landscaping, lighting, and paving improvements. Develop prototypical designs to improve awnings, signage, window displays, color, materials, and other building features for interim and long-term upgrades to existing businesses along Columbia Drive, and the Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Street  Expand the source of low cost building improvement and development funds - to rehabilitate, retrofit, and building onto or on top of existing older commercial buildings, facades, signage, and other design improvements by increasing city and HDKP-financed grants with larger matching local lender low interest funds.  Award capital investment funds on a competitive basis or in response to a request system - where the applicant demonstrates the rehab, retrofit, infill or add onto, façade, and signage project is viable, will improve conditions within the BB/RR and downtown district, and cannot be financed with traditional market sources. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department and HDKP Participant  Port of Kennewick  Kennewick Auto Dealers Association  Council of Government EDC  TRIDEC  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Funding Main Street program and special event costs will be funded with:  Downtown Revitalization-Main Street Program (MainSt)  Downtown Revitalization Program (DRP)  Tourism Marketing Program (TMP) grants  supplemented with a Parking & Business Improvement Area (PBIA) or Business Improvement District or other form of dues from local benefiting property and business owners Façade and building rehabilitation improvement costs will be funded with seed money from:  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) grants  local financial institutions (Prvt), among others Promotion 5: Update and expand city/HDKP websites The current Kennewick brand (sun and river logo) is graphic and effective but has not been systematically or comprehensively incorporated into the city or HDKP web, print, signage, media, or other promotional materials. The sun and river are unique and important to Kennewick and are dominant themes that can attract new residents or investments to the city when compared to the themes being developed by competitors. Kennewick is located astride Interstates 82, 84, and 182, and State Routes 12 and US- 395 - the most heavily traveled highway corridors in eastern Washington and Oregon. Kennewick is provided the only direct west connections via I-84 to the Columbia Gorge, Portland, and the coast, and east connection to Salt Lake City, Spokane. Kennewick is provided the only north-south connections to Seattle via I-82/SR-12 and Spokane via I-182/US-395. Kennewick is connected to history and Richland and Pasco (the other tri-cities) via the Sacagawea Heritage Trail that loops around both sides of the Columbia River on the I-182 and US- ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization 395/Cable Bridges. Lewis & Clark’s Eastbound Trail is located just south of Kennewick city limits. The Toyota Center and Arena, Convention Center, and East Benton County Museum, Fairgrounds, and Horse Racing Track attractions are located in Kennewick. Kennewick also hosts the annual 2 day Columbia Cup hydroplane races during the Tri-City Water Follies in the Columbia River opposite Columbia Park – the only natural shoreline along the river. However, the city has not heretofore fully captured the hotel and motel accommodations, entertainment, and retail or travel revenues, or the visibility and identification such tourist potentials make possible from the city’s transportation location and unique and high quality tourist assets. The community workshops identified other city principal assets that should be incorporated into an updated brand including the aesthetic Cable Bridge, Clover Island marina, and Duffy’s Pond shoreline, historic downtown district buildings and artworks, Civic Center parks and facilities, Columbia Irrigation District Canal, BNSF depot (and former site of the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train) and proposed Public Market site, and the potential for new developments along and overlooking the stormwater swale, levee, and Columbia River shoreline between the Blue and Cable Bridges. The Kennewick and HDKP websites are currently devoted primarily to city and HDKP information, activities, and other incidentals. The websites do not provide the type of information of most interest to tourists or to future business prospects, or persons seeking to find out information about living in Kennewick. Community/business/tourist oriented websites should provide basic information about attractions, events, visitor and business services, transportation, and available business and residential properties. The sites should be interactive linking maps, photos, and streaming videos from business outlets and community organizations. The sites should also collect and distribute information about coming events, sales, promotions, and other activities of interest to residents as well as tourists by way of an ever expanding e- newsletter and micro-blogging roster. And, the sites should assemble e-mail and e-newsletter lists by which to forward interested parties updates on events, new business opportunities, and other information. Action Therefore the Kennewick Economic/Community Development Department and HDKP will:  Refine the brand, tagline, and logo – and other promotional materials for the city and include the BB/RR area and proposed Public Market activities and developments. Create an updated city and HDKP style guide to coordinate and manage the websites and collateral materials.  Expand city/HDKP marketing/tourism websites - using Google’s CommunityWalk, YouTube videos, Yahoo!’s Calendar event scheduling and promotions, Flickr photo management and sharing, Twitter micro-blogging, and other interactive tools to create the following:  Homepage - with copyrighted name, brand, and logo and registered URL, embedded search engines, streaming pictures, city maps, and external linkages  Attractions pages – with pop-up maps and sidebars on area climate and geography, demographic and economic statistics, city and area history, and recreation facilities sitemaps and photos  Events pages – with calendar schedule and event planning information on facilities, florists, food catering, musicians, party rentals and supplies, and photographers  Visitor services pages – with pop-up maps and sidebars on dining, lodging, and shopping businesses including direct linkages to each business website, e-mail, streaming videos, and other proprietor promotional materials  Business investment pages – including linkages with pop-up maps and sidebar info to area multi-list realtors with information on available business properties of interest to merchants and businesses interested in locating or investing in Chehalis  Resident services pages – including linkages with pop- up maps and sidebars on schools, churches, and realtors with information on available housing properties of ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization interest to existing residents and households interested in living in Kennewick  Transportation pages – including pop-up maps and sidebar info on automobile routes, transit, taxi, and limousine services, Amtrak railroad, and airplane and airport schedules  Gallery pages – including factoid sheets, downloadable photo galleries, e-postcards, e-newsletter sign-ups, and requests for brochures or other promotional materials  Design and publish coordinated print collateral materials - including typography, color, placement, and other preliminary style guide contents for the following:  Correspondence – including letterhead, business cards, envelopes, labels, and other correspondence materials  Brochures – including transmittal folders with insert pockets and templates for insert or hand-out sheets, CDs, and DVDs with detailed information on trade area demographics, finance, property listings, and other marketing materials  Flyers – including single, double, and tri-fold handouts and inserts for ferry, motel, convention center, and other promotional stands and exhibits  Advertising templates – including single and multiple page banners and inserts for merchant group advertisements in newspapers and magazines  Billboards – including background imagery and message themes for hardcopy billboards and electronic messaging reader-boards  Trailers and information stands – including wrapping schemes for mobile trailer information stands, vehicles, and buildings to operate in Columbia Park during seasonal events Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department and the Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership Participant  Port of Kennewick  Kennewick Auto Dealers Association  Council of Governments EDC  TRIDEC  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chambers of Commerce  Realtors and developers Funding Design and production of updated marketing materials and websites could be funded with:  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax)  Hotel/Motel lodging taxes (HMTax)  Washington State Department of Commerce Tourism Marketing Program (TMP)  TRIDEC, Chambers, Port, and realtor, lender, and other private sources 6: Install historic district, gateways, and wayfinding signage Historic district designations - particularly national landmark designations, signify a city’s valued assets, attract tourist interest and visits, and promote building and property investments. Kennewick’s distinctive historic downtown is viable and preserves significant buildings and characters that define the place. Few cities originally possessed as much architectural heritage, or have been able to preserve as much of the original buildings as downtown Kennewick. However, for all practical purposes, the district is invisible to outsiders, particularly out-of-region visitors and tourists who pass by on Interstate 82 and 182, or even thorough town on US- 395, SR-240 and SR-397 or even on most major arterial roadways – other than the signage on Benton Street’s intersection with Columbia Drive. Without recognition, Kennewick is unable to capitalize on its historical asset to the extent that other cities have, some with less potential, and that it ought to be able to with effective publicity and signage. Gateways - define the edge of the city or district so that passers- through recognize that the area beyond the gateway has special ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed gateways/wayfinding signage Gateways to BB/RR at Columbia Trail, Columbia Existing gateways Drive, and Railroad Avenue Proposed gateways Wayfinding signage for Columbia Park, Clover Proposed wayfinding signage Island, Historic Downtown, Civic Center, Library, Outdoor Pool, Schools, Parks, etc Columbia Drive Columbia Drive Columbia Park Trail West 6th Ave Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Kennewick Ave West 4th Ave Gum St Clover Island West Canal Drive Garfield St ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization significance. The ancient Chinese used a progressive series of more intensive and imposing gateways to define roadways as they entered the empire and traveled to the centermost places of commerce and power. The boundaries of the BB/RR and downtown are not well defined, and in some places along Columbia Park Trail, Columbia Drive, Kennewick Avenue, Interstate 82, SR-240 and US-395, and SR-397/Gum Street are not distinguishable from outer unincorporated areas. The city needs to install gateways that define the BB/RR and downtown’s edge, give importance to major and establish an image or identity that is unique to Kennewick – as the Port of Kennewick has recently done to the entry to Clover Island. Wayfinding - while gateways define entry into the BB/RR and downtown, wayfinding signs establish an identity and system of visual directories that guide visitors to major destinations, public facilities, parking areas, and otherwise highlight attractions and important places. Properly designed, wayfinding signage also implement a branding message by incorporating logos, themes, colors, typography, and other visual and graphic imagery. Properly implemented, wayfinding signage can also incorporate sub-themes or motifs that establish distinct neighborhoods and districts within the larger city as a way of recognition important to local residents. Kennewick lacks a wayfinding system – a serious deficiency in a city that is defined by a series of intersecting grid roadways, railroad crossings, and bisecting interstate highways and bridges – and which is relatively invisible and incomprehensible from the interstate highways. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will work with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Benton County and Kennewick Public Works Departments to:  Have WSDOT install – historic district signage for the downtown on US-395, SR-240 and SR-397 exit ramps to the newly constructed roundabouts.  Install historic district directional signage - on other local roadways leading into the BB/RR and downtown including Kennewick Avenue, First Avenue, and Gum Street.  Design and install gateway or entry improvements – including the graphic concepts, sign standards, and other particulars that identify entry into the BB/RR and downtown based on variations of the city’s established sun and river logo elements on SR-240 and SR-397, US-395, Columbia Park Trail, Columbia Drive, Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Streets.  Install way-finder signage – including graphic concepts, sign standards, and placement strategies identifying routes to and locations of Columbia Park, Duffy’s Pond, Clover Island, the downtown, and Civic Center with city hall, police station, library, schools, parks and trails, and other key sites that define the BB/RR and downtown. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development and Public Works Departments Participant  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Kennewick Auto Dealers Association  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Funding Historic district signage, gateway, and wayfinding improvements will be funded with proceeds from the: ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization  Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax (HMtax)  Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)  General Fund’s property tax (Ptax)  Washington State Department of Commerce’s Tourism Marketing Program (TMP)  Rural Tourism Development Program (T+RTDP)  Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership  Port of Kennewick Note – WSDOT will continuously maintain all historic district signage on US-395, SR-240, and SR-397 at no cost after Kennewick has reimbursed WSDOT for the initial fabrication and installation cost. Design standards 7: Update/refine zoning designations Kennewick currently has 7 residential zones, 8 commercial zones, 4 industrial districts, and 4 other districts including public facilities, parking, and open space. The BB/RR area is designated by 4 zones including:  high density residential zoning - of the properties within the single family neighborhood located between Columbia Drive and the railroad tracks west of Dayton Street and the single family residential and trailer parks north of Columbia Drive between Dayton and Auburn Street;  industrial zoning - of the properties located south of Deschutes Avenue and Columbia Drive that border the railroad spur and mainline tracks;  commercial zoning - of the properties bordering both sides of Columbia Drive and all parcels north to the river levee including Clover Island; and  public facility zoning - of Fruitland Park located between Fruitland and Garfield, and Entiat and Deschutes Avenues bordering the single family neighborhood. Generally, the existing zoning designations reflect the land use element of the city’s comprehensive plan and past ambitions for the BB/RR area. However, in some instances, the zoning is not entirely appropriate or refined enough to reflect the potentials that have emerged from this planning effort. For example:  Single family neighborhood – between Columbia Drive and Railroad Avenue and the tracks, and west of Fruitland is composed of single family, some duplex, and a few townhouse structures. Neighborhood structures are in good condition including some new infill houses. The neighborhood is fairly stable, and except for the houses that are located north of Grand Ronde Avenue that abut the commercial uses on Columbia Drive, the boundaries are well defined. The neighborhood should be rezoned from Residential High Density (RH) to Residential Low Density (RL) or Residential Medium Density (RM) to reflect existing conditions and provide the stability and suitable environment appropriate to promote family life in an urban setting.  Industrial district uses – are located south of Deschutes and Bruneau Avenues to the Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad spurs and mainline tracks. Some of these uses evolved from railroad oriented or serviced industrial activities including scrap yards, tank fuel processing and storage, food processing plants, millhouses, and warehouses. At the present time, very few of these businesses are dependent on rail service and most move products in and out of the area on trucks and trailers. A variety of other non-rail oriented industrial, manufacturing, construction, and warehousing activities have located in the industrial area due to its ready transportation connections to the Tri-Cities and surrounding region. These business enterprises will likely remain viable uses in the industrial district unless or until land values increase to the point where such low capital intensive activities will seek to locate to other accessible but lower cost properties in the region. The industrial district should remain zoned Industrial Light (IL) though the boundaries should be refined to reflect current usage and allow commercial or mixed use activities north of Bruneau Avenue and east of Elm Street.  Auto Row commercial – is located on Columbia Drive from US-395 or the access to the Blue Bridge east to Fruitland with ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed land use MXD – High Residential - Low Industrial MXD – Low MXD – Low MXD – Medium MXD – Medium Commercial Commercial MXD – Medium Columbia Drive Columbia Drive Fruitland St Washington St Gum St Bruneau Ave Benton St ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization some auto and recreational vehicle (RV) dealers and repair services scattered amid gas stations, food stores, restaurants, and office buildings on Columbia Drive further east to Cascade. Dealerships located west of Fruitland, including the Audi/VW dealer, have invested considerable funds in showroom, service, and other structures on site. Most dealerships, however, particularly those located east of Fruitland, are largely paved parking lots with minimal other improvements. Like some of the industrial uses, these low capital intensive businesses will remain viable in auto row unless or until land values increase to the point where such low capital intensive activities will seek to locate to other accessible but lower cost properties in the region. This portion of Columbia Drive should remain zoned Commercial General (CG) reflecting current use and the capital investment that has been made for new facilities and site improvements by auto dealers as well as the construction companies and operators within the area.  Mixed use – the remainder of Columbia Drive frontage and the properties located north of Columbia Drive to the river levee are currently occupied by low intensity commercial and related business uses fronting on Columbia Drive, trailer parks, some scattered single family residential housing, and a significant amount of underutilized and vacant land – particularly in the northwestern corner. These segments of the BB/RR area provide the most opportunity for new urban neighborhoods combining ground floor retail, entertainment, personal services, and other pedestrian-related activities with upper floor office and residential uses. The area is centrally located to regionally accessible arterial roadways (Columbia Drive, US-395, and SR-397), on major transit routes, within walking and biking distance of the river levee and trails, downtown, and civic center parks and public facilities. In effect, the area has potential for being developed into a fully sustainable neighborhood providing opportunities to live, work, and play within the immediate area. Kennewick zoning classifications include the Historic Mixed Use (HMU) district which is intended to provide a “stable living environment for residents and proprietors choosing to locate in a historic setting, which includes limited small-scale commercial retail and non-retail uses within walking distance of those residents.” However, the HMU district does not allow residential or mixed use structures and is limited to the boundaries of the historic downtown with additional restrictions intended to retain structures and uses which are compatible with historic buildings and designs. Kennewick’s Residential High Density (RH) district allows urban density residential uses but not mixed use, is restricted to a 45 foot height limit, and a maximum density of 27 units per acre. Neither the HMU or RH zoning classifications provide for a mixed use designation where retail, office, and housing can be incorporated into mixed use structures – particularly in urban settings oriented to streetfront pedestrian activities and circulation, with common or consolidated public/private focal and activity accent points, and of densities compatible with platform building sufficient to offset the economic cost of revitalization and redevelopment. Nor are either of these districts easily modified to do so without altering the impact the districts are intended to have on the downtown or elsewhere in the city. Action Therefore the Economic/Community Development Department will work with the Planning Commission and City Council to:  Amend the Zoning Map of the City of Kennewick – to retain Industrial Light (IL) zoning along the railroad corridor, retain Commercial General (CG) zoning of Auto Row on Columbia Drive, and re-designate the single family neighborhood on Grand Ronde and Entiat Avenues for Residential Low or Medium Density (RL or RM).  Amend Chapter 18.03 of the Municipal Code to create a Mixed Use (MU) zoning district - using the footnotes in Table 18.12.010: Use and Standards Table, the designations in Table 18.12.010 A.2: Table of Residential Site Development Standards, ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization the designations in Table 18.12.010 B.1: Table of Non- Residential Uses, designations in Table 18.12.010 B.2: Table of Non-Residential Site Development Standards, and other provisions of Chapter 18.03 to implement appropriate mixed use developments in the BB/RR area.  Incorporate Incentive Zoning provisions – in the Mixed Use (MU) zone providing non-cash incentives including added building height and reduced parking requirements and cash incentives including deferred building review and permit fees, utility connection fees, and growth impact fees for affordable and workforce units of housing for households making 80% or less of Average Median Household Income (AMHI) in the Tri-City area. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department and Planning Commission Participant  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Kennewick Auto Dealers Association  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chambers of Commerce  Business and property owners  Citizens at large Funding Zoning map revisions and development of the Mixed Use (MU district provisions will be funded with:  Washington State Department of Commerce Growth Management Planning (GMP) funds  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax) 8: Adopt design standards for BB/RR mixed use Historical legacy - Kennewick retains a significant inventory of contributing historical buildings and landmarks in the designated historical downtown district on Kennewick Avenue. Kennewick’s historical legacy is critically important to the city’s identity and potential for promoting a unique brand and sense of place. Some of the downtown’s historical buildings have been retained, restored, and enhanced using HDKP and Kennewick Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance programs. Other existing buildings in the districts, which may or may not be historically significant, must also be retained to preserve the architectural scale, pedestrian-friendly, unique setting and sense of place the historical buildings create. New building developments within the downtown district, including structures to be built in vacant or underused properties, must be designed to be compatible and complimentary with the existing architectural heritage to retain a building and district context. New developments – to be built along Columbia Drive, around Duffy’s Pond, and elsewhere along the stormwater swale and levee, however, should reflect mixed-use projects of retail, office, and housing structures. Prototypical projects can utilize “platform” building constructions composed of concrete and steel ground level retail and parking “platforms” with stick-built residential units over top up to the maximum heights allowed by building and fire codes (5 floors of housing if built with wood components). Platform building designs are relatively cost and site efficient avoiding the high cost and structural problems associated with underground parking garages, particularly within flood zones and alluvial river plains. Applied to Kennewick, platform buildings locate housing units above the levee and flood level along the riverfront avoiding flood zone ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Platform with 2-level parking deck – 1 level down and 1 level up ramped from street level with retail or other pedestrian friendly activities fronting onto main streets Retail parking provided on-street in parallel or angled parking Retail or other pedestrian friendly activities fronting onto main streets Up to 5-story mixed income stick-built housing developed to the allowable parking capacity. Illustrative developments – Mixed-use prototype – low density Same prototype can be developed in 100-160 foot wide modules incorporating additional parking deck floors for higher density. Upper stores can be offset to provide terraces or varying visual accents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization restrictions for housing and providing views over the levee of riverfront activities. However, to be design effective, platform building developments must incorporate interesting ground level retail and pedestrian friendly activities and streetscape improvements including signage and landscaping; articulated upper floor building features including balconies, terraces, and other modulations; scaled and colorful building materials including “greenscape” features; and appropriate site placement to avoid walling off views with blocky building masses. Quality building, signage, and landscape designs and enhancements are not expensive, increase the curb appeal and value of the property, and are generally provided by the same developments in surrounding cities as either public requirements, or by the developers recognizing the value of the improvements. Action The Economic/Community Development Department will:  Adopt historical building design guidelines – specifying the characteristics to be retained, reconstructed, and enhanced in contributing and non-contributing buildings and infill developments in the historic downtown.  Adopt new building design guidelines – specifying building articulations, placement, size and mass, frontages, entries, parking, and other characteristics of new mixed-use developments on Columbia Drive, around Duffy’s Pond, and elsewhere in the mixed-use districts in the BB/RR area.  Adopt signage design guidelines – specifying the purpose, type, number, size, graphic content, lighting, and other characteristics of property and building signage, including the historic downtown district and BB/RR to improve the impact of business, promotional, and other advertising signage on the property, downtown district, and from the roadway and pedestrian areas elsewhere in the city.  Adopt landscape design guidelines – specifying low maintenance, native materials that provide ground cover, seasonal color, and visual interest for low upkeep but maximum visibility, street trees for accent and canopy, and other landscape improvements for existing and new developments throughout the BB/RR area. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department and Planning Commission Participant  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Kennewick Auto Dealers Association  Tri-Cities/Hispanic Chambers of Commerce  Business and property owners  Citizens at large Funding Building, signage, landscape ordinances and design guidelines and improvements will be funded with:  Commerce Growth Management Planning (GMP) funds  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax)  by reimbursement from public and private developments Design/development - infrastructure 9: Fill/soft armor select river shoreline areas for fish habitat The river flood levee constructed along the BB/RR shoreline from the US-395/Blue Bridge to the SR-397/Cable Bridge is composed ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed shoreline enhancements 1 Columbia Park 7 Stormwater Swale Enhancement Existing shoreline enhancements 2 Clover Island shoreline Enhancement Proposed shoreline enhancements 3 Columbia Irrigation District Canal 4 Tri-City Golf Course 350 foot elevation – top of levee 5 Columbia River Shoreline Enhancement 6 Duffy Pond Restoration/Enhancement 6 1 7 2 3 5 4 5 7 Columbia Drive Columbia Drive Washington St Fruitland St Gum St Columbia Park Trail ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Swale/levee enhancements – typical section River overlook with open grate surface decking to avoid casting shadows on river for predator fish Occasional river fill to create “soft armoring” beach for fish habitat enhancement Sacagewa Heritage Trail enhanced with additional furnishings and signage 32’ 45’ 20’ 25’ 5’ 50’ 27’ 16’ Levee Access Stormwater swale - varies Private property Vegetation mat on inside of levee for visual enhancement “Grasscrete” reinforced grass surface for emergency vehicle access and visual enhancement Native plantings and landscape in stormwater swale to improve bio- filtration and visual enhancement Native plantings and landscape in stormwater swale buffer area Trail bridges and stairways to improve access between neighborhoods and swale/levee/shoreline Pedestrian boardwalk with adjacent ground floor retail to provide activity and interest Mixed-use platform buildings with upper story stick-built mixed income housing located above levee Ground floor retail backed by 2-story parking decks ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization of rip rap rockery devoid of any vegetation or sandy shoreline. The levee edge along the river in particular, lacks any softening vegetation or sandy beach or soft armoring areas vital for fish habitat – and to soften the aesthetic impact. The Port of Kennewick has successfully obtained US Corps of Engineers, Washington State Departments of Ecology (DOE) and Fish & Wildlife (DFW), and Umatilla Tribe reviews, permit approvals, and completed ensuing shoreline enhancement projects around Clover Island to improve fish habitat for this purpose. The same enhancements should be done for the levee rockery along the river shoreline between the Blue and Cable Bridges. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will:  Inventory, design, submit, and accomplish project applications – to the Corps, DOE, DFW, and Umatilla Tribe for the installation of sandy, soft armoring shoreline enhancements at select and appropriate locations along the river levee shoreline between the Blue and Cable Bridges. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department Participant  US Army Corps of Engineers  Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)  Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW)  Umatilla Tribe  Port of Kennewick Funding Shoreline enhancements for fish habitat can be funded with:  Washington State Department of Natural Resource (DNR) Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act (ALEA)  Resource Conservation Office (RCO) park and wildlife grants  General Fund property taxes (Ptax) 10: Install stormwater swale/river levee enhancements The stormwater swale that extends on the inside of the river flood levee from the Blue Bridge to Duffy’s Pond is owned by the US Corp of Engineers including Duffy’s Pond. The swale, which was originally a series of deep collection ditches, was constructed to collect stormwater runoff from the properties located within the low lying area south to Columbia Drive and below the flood level of 350 feet. Stormwater collected and drained east through the ditch to Duffy’s Pond where the overflow was pumped into the Columbia River. Due to the ditch depth, some waters remained in the ditch during dry periods stimulating vegetation growth which required periodic cleanouts, and hosting mosquitoes which required periodic pesticide spraying. As a result of these conditions, Kennewick leased the ditch and Duffy’s Pond from the Corp, installed underground collection pipes and above ground collection grates, and partially filled the ditch to create a graduated swale. The swale was seeded with grass, planted with some vegetation on the buffer areas, and furnished with some scattered picnic tables and shelters. (Kennewick initially intended to completely fill the ditch to the same elevation as surrounding properties but had to cut back on the project due to the size and cost of the underground pipe and Corp concerns about stormwater handling capacity during peak rains.) As is, the swale and the rockery of the inside edge of the river flood levee represent a formidable physical and visual barrier to the river from the frontage properties along the swale and from public roadways with views of the swale and levee. ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Therefore the Economic/Community Development Department will work with the US Corp of Engineers to:  Install a vegetation mat on the inside face of the river flood levee - to soften the view and provide aesthetic interest. The mat will provide a surface upon which native, drought tolerant native ground cover plants can grow that will not root into and lessen the integrity of the levee – and block views from fronting property developments.  Install “grasscrete” or similar structural underground material that allows grass to grow through the grid - removing Columbia Park Trail roadway (see task 12) and the asphalt and gravel surface of the emergency access roadway that extends from the Blue Bridge to the Cable Bridge. Grasscrete will support emergency vehicles and access but provide a grassy surface that can be walked on and used as a linear park.  Install native plant materials and rockery within the swale – to slow and bio-filtrate stormwater runoff and provide aesthetic interest. Native plantings can withstand periods of rain and sun, minimize maintenance requirements, and soften the stormwater swale edges. In some instances, the swale may be reconfigured to provide the same collection capacity but lessen the linear geometrical appearance.  Install grass, street trees, and furnishings on the inside swale buffer – to provide a visual accent, active park space, and support the construction of pedestrian trails and boardwalks on frontage property developments.  Construct bridges and stairways across the swale and up the inside levee face - to connect the BB/RR neighborhood, frontage properties, and boardwalk/trails on the inside of the swale with Sacagawea Heritage Trail on the top of the levee. The bridges and stairways will create a series of trail loops increasing access between these enhancements and the riverfront.  Install wayfinding and directory signs, interpretive exhibits, picnic tables, and shelters – on the Sacagawea Heritage Trail on top of the levee, along the edge of the emergency access grasscrete linear park, and along the buffer on the inside of the swale to increase amenities, interest, and the visual appeal of the swale/levee corridor.  Install an artworks gallery – along the trail and swale corridor and viewing areas that features the work of local artists that are displayed on a consignment basis for public appreciation and sale. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development Department Participant  US Army Corps of Engineers  Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)  Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW)  Umatilla Tribe  Port of Kennewick  Property owners and residents  Citizens at large Funding Levee plantings, grasscrete installations, swale and buffer plantings and furnishings will be funded with:  Stormwater Utility Fee (SDUFee)  General Fund property taxes (Ptax)  Department of Ecology (DOE) Centennial Fund grants  Resource Conservation Office (RCO) wildlife and park grants  private monies (Prvt) from developers of adjoining properties 11: Acquire/develop BB/RR parks Columbia Park is a significant regional asset providing a variety of natural areas, waterfront shorelines, boat access, hike and bike trails, playgrounds, picnic shelters and kitchens, and other activities and amenities. There are no comparable park improvements or riverfront access points, however, within the BB/RR area even though past and present proposals envision a significant population living along the levee and shoreline. Sacagawea Heritage Trail provides a ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed parks 1 Columbia Park 8 Layton Park Existing boat launch 2 Sacagawea Trail/Levee/Stormwater Swale 9 Tri-City Golf Course Existing pier 3 Veteran’s Memorial 10 Clover Island Marina Existing park 4 Fruitland Park 11 Jesernig Park Proposed park 5 Hatfield Park 12 Riverfront Landing – Fruitland Street 6 Keewaydin Park 13 Entiat Park 7 Civic Center Park 14 Duffy’s Pond Park and Access ` 9 12 1 7 3 2 5 4 8 6 11 13 10 14 Columbia Drive Columbia Drive Fruitland St Columbia Park Trail Washington St Gum St West 6th Ave West Canal Drive Clover Island ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed off-road multipurpose trail network 1 Sacagawea Heritage Trail Existing off-road trails 2 Storm Swale Trail/Boardwalk Proposed off-road trails 3 Canal Dike Trail 4 Benton Street Connector 1 3 4 2 Columbia Park Trail Canal Dike Trail Benton St Sacagawea Heritage Trail Cable Bridge/SR-397 Washington St ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization linear access the length of the shoreline but other than levee-top furnishings, does not access an adjoining trailhead with parking, comfort, convenience facilities, viewpoints, picnic shelters, or waterfront access opportunities. Public access with over water landings and viewpoints, trail and park activities, and trailhead services must be installed within the BB/RR area to support future neighborhood residents as well as provide for tourists and users from the city at large. These public access nodes should be located to provide visual connections between the swale/levee and pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles on adjoining roadways – particularly Columbia Drive and Fruitland, and Columbia Drive and Duffy’s Pond to integrate and interest the surrounding area with the riverfront. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development and Parks Departments will:  Designate a publicly accessible but potentially privately owned or dedicated park improvement on frontage property between John Day and Jean Streets – to be enhanced with a visual accent and/or park activity with a stormwater collection or bio-filtration pond, a pedestrian boardwalk, street trees, benches, picnic tables, artworks, and other amenities. The park improvement will be constructed and maintained or donated to the city by the frontage property developer in lieu of a park impact fee or late-comer charge.  Acquire a public park property between the swale/levee and Columbia Drive at Fruitland Street – and construct an over- water landing and viewpoint – possibly with water edge access, interpretive exhibit and artworks, picnic shelter and kitchen – possibly with vendor concessions, comfort station, parking, and transit stop.  Designate a publicly accessible but potentially privately owned or dedicated park improvement on frontage property between Benton and Washington Streets – to be enhanced with a visual accent and/or park activity with a stormwater collection or bio-filtration pond, a pedestrian boardwalk, street trees, benches, picnic tables, artworks, and other amenities. The park improvement will be constructed and maintained or donated to the city by the frontage property developer in lieu of a park impact fee or late-comer charge.  Acquire a public park property between Duffy’s Pond and Columbia Drive – and construct a major into the site with hardscape plazas with interpretive exhibits and artworks, spray water features or fountains, amphitheater, playground, picnic shelter and kitchen – possibly with vendor concessions, comfort station, parking, and transit stop. Depending on the Port of Kennewick’s Master Plan for Duffy’s Pond, extend the around Duffy’s Pond furnishing the wetland buffer area with perimeter access trails, benches, and other amenities. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development and Parks Departments Participant  Port of Kennewick  US Army Corps of Engineers  Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW)  Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)  Umatilla Tribe  Property developers  Property owners and residents  Citizens at large Funding Acquisition and development of public and publicly-accessible parks will be funded with:  General Fund property taxes (Ptax)  Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization  Tourism Hotel/Motel Tax  Washington State Department of Natural Resource (DNR) Aquatic Land Enhancement Act (ALEA) grants  Resource Conservation Office (RCO) wildlife and park grants  Park impact fees (Parkfee) or fees-in-lieu from private monies (Prvt) from developers of adjoining properties and/or  late-comer fee charges of adjoining and succeeding property developments within the BB/RR area 12: Reconfigure road network The road network in the BB/RR area is a reflection of the historical grid system defined between the river and the downtown. Deviations from the grid are defined by Railroad Avenue and West Canal Drive that front on the railroad, and Columbia Park Trail that is aligned from the Blue Bridge to Fruitland Street on the emergency access road bench adjacent to the river flood levee.  Columbia Drive – is the eastern surface arterial roadway extension of SR-240 between US-395/Blue Bridge and SR- 397/Cable Bridge. The 4 traffic and 1 median turn lane roadway is controlled by the newly constructed roundabouts with SR-240 and US-395, then by traffic signals at Fruitland, Washington, and SR-397/Gum Streets. In 2008, traffic volumes during a 24 hour average daily traffic (ADT) period on Columbia Drive were 23,630 vehicles between US-395 and Fruitland, 20,140 vehicles between Fruitland and Washington, and 17,849 vehicles between Washington and Gum Streets. By comparison, ADT was 4,664 vehicles on West Canal Drive, 5,542 vehicles on Kennewick Avenue, and 9,908 vehicles on First Street through the downtown. ADT was 8,467 vehicles on Fruitland, 2,824 vehicles on Benton, 9,233 vehicles on Washington, and 18,928 vehicles on SR-397/Gum Streets between Columbia Drive and West Canal Drive. In essence, approximately 17,800 vehicles are through traffic between US-395/Blue Bridge and SR-397/Cable Bridge while 6,000 vehicles turn on and off Columbia Drive at Fruitland, Benton, and Washington Streets for downtown or other southbound destinations. Generally, Columbia Drive is capable of managing this volume and even more traffic if cross traffic turns, curb cuts, and other local access traffic are properly controlled. The median lane should be curtailed to only provide left and right turn movements at major streets or traffic controlled intersections for this purpose.  Columbia Park Trail – extends along the complete riverfront shoreline from I-182/SR-240 east under SR-240 and through Columbia Park and under US-395/Blue Bridge into the BB/RR area to Fruitland Street. Columbia Park Trail roadway segments between I-182 and Columbia Center Boulevard are relatively heavily travelled providing access to adjacent commercial and industrial uses and the city’s major arterial and highway interchange connections. The 2-lane roadway extension through Columbia Park and into the BB/RR area, however, is relatively traveled except during seasonal events like the Tri-City Water Follies and Columbia Cup hydroplane races in the park. Columbia Park Trail’s alignment from the Blue Bridge to Fruitland Street was likely a matter of convenience making use of the flood levee’s emergency access road bench for the roadway’s alignment – particularly as the road had light traffic bound for the park. The roadway was not aligned for access or view purposes since it is separated from adjacent properties by the stormwater swale and located below the top of the levee and therefore, unable to view the riverfront. Columbia Park Trail’s alignment provides another physical and visual barrier between the BB/RR area and the riverfront and serves no local access or traffic collection purpose. The road should be relocated south of the swale to improve aesthetics and provide interior access to the large relatively landlocked properties that front on the swale.  Railroad/Bruneau Avenues – are local industrial roads that provide access to the railroad-oriented industrial activities ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed road network 1 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 1-John Day 7 Elm Street extension/access Existing roads – retained 2 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 2–Kent Pl 8 Bruneau/Railroad Avenue open/alignment Existing roads - modified 3 Klamath Avenue extension 9 Railroad Avenue extension Proposed roads 4 Grande Ronde Avenue extension 5 Entiat Avenue extension 6 Deschutes Avenue extension/access 1 2 3 8 4 5 5 6 7 9 11 Columbia Park Trail Kennewick Ave West 4th Ave/Vineyard Drive West 6th Ave East 1st Ave East 3rd Ave Columbia Drive Grande Ronde Ave Entiat Ave Deschutes Ave Bruneau Ave Klamath Ave West Canal Drive Blue Bridge/US-395 Cable Bridge/SR-397 Clover Island Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Gum St Garfield St Dayton St ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed railroad network BNSF – Burlington Northern Santa Fe Existing railroad track UP – Union Pacific Proposed railroad track Port – Port of Kennewick Remove railroad track BNSF UP UP BNSF UP UP UP Port BNSF Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Gum St Bruneau Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed on-road bikeway network 1 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 1-John Day 7 Elm Street extension/access Existing on-road bikeways 2 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 2–Kent Pl 8 Bruneau/Railroad Avenue open/alignment Proposed on-road bikeways 3 Klamath Avenue extension 9 Railroad Avenue extension 4 Grande Ronde Avenue 5 Entiat Avenue extension 6 Deschutes Avenue extension/access 1 2 3 8 4 5 6 9 7 Blue Bridge/US-395 Cable Bridge/SR-397 Columbia Park Trail Klamath Ave Grande Ronde Ave Entiat Ave Deschutes Ave Kennewick Ave West 4th Ave/Vineyard Drive West 6th Ave East 3rd Ave East 1st Ave Bruneau Ave Clover Island Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Gum St Garfield St Dayton St ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization located along the Union Pacific (UP) and Port of Kennewick rail spurs and main lines. Portions of both roadways still retain spur tracks and some adjoining UP and Port rail right-of-way. The west end of Bruneau Avenue ran through the Welch’s Company food processing plant, which eventually developed on both sides of the road and even included an underground tunnel connection from the main plant on the south side of the road with the storage warehouse on the north side. This portion of the roadway was eventually vacated to provide the plant complete and secure control of the road through the plant’s operations. However, the plant is no longer in operation and therefore the private ownership no longer needs to control access through the property. In fact, the road closure impedes traffic flow along the remainder of Bruneau and between Bruneau and the properties south of Columbia Drive with the rest of the BB/RR area, downtown, and city. The roadway should be reclaimed as public right-of-way and the intersection with Railroad should be realigned to provide a continuous north side access road along the railroad tracks for the industrial district. Railroad Avenue is essentially the western extension of Bruneau Avenue providing access to the warehouse and industrial activities that front onto the UP spur and mainline tracks west of Washington Street. Most of the right-of-way is bisected by the largely inactive UP rail spur and used for in-street parking and material storage by adjacent property owners. When there is no longer a rail user of the UP and Port of Kennewick spur track, it should be removed and the roadway restored to provide functional traffic lanes and on-street parking. The road should also be extended west of Hartford Street into undeveloped and surplus BNSF property to allow additional rail or other related industrial development.  Local collector roadways – will need to be defined and required to support future developments between Columbia Drive and the swale/levee. Otherwise, future developments may create a series of dead-end or cul-de-sac access roads that depend solely on Columbia Drive for access creating congestion on Columbia Drive and lowering traffic capacity accordingly. The exact location and configuration of these local collector roads will depend on future development particulars. In the meantime, the BB/RR Revitalization should designate and reserve the extension of Klamath Avenue east to allow realignment of Columbia Park Trail, the extension of Grande Ronde, Entiat, and Deschutes Avenues east to connect with Washington Street and Duffy Pond properties, and the extension of Beech and Elm Streets north across Columbia Drive to provide access into Duffy Pond properties. Conversely, depending on future traffic volumes and congestion, the BB/RR Revitalization may designate future closure or channelization for right turn in and out of Columbia Drive on Garfield, Dayton, Cascade, and Auburn Streets to reduce congestion points. Action Therefore the Economic/Community Development and Public Works Departments will:  Reduce and control median lane traffic turning movements on Columbia Drive – to control right and left turn lanes at major street and traffic signal intersections to increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion with adjacent land uses.  Realign Columbia Park Trail - from the flood levee emergency access road bench south into the BB/RR neighborhood possibly aligning on John Day Avenue or Kent Place south to Klamath Avenue then east to Fruitland Street.  Open, realign, and extend Bruneau/Railroad Avenues – west through the former food processing plant reclaiming the roadway when the UP and Port spur tracks are removed, and extending the road west of Hartford Street to allow industrial development of the surplus BNSF property.  Designate on the streets and roads map – the potential extensions of Grande Ronde, Entiat, and Deschutes Avenues, and the closure or channelization of Garfield, Dayton, Cascade, and ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Auburn Streets to manage access to future developments along the swale/levee and control traffic movements and capacity on Columbia Drive. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development and Public Works Departments Participant  Port of Kennewick  Property developers  Property owners and residents  Citizens at large Funding The realignments and reconfiguration of Columbia Drive, Columbia Park Trail, Bruneau/Railroad Avenue, and local collector access roadways will be funded with:  Federal Aid Safety Programs (FAUS)  Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA) grant and loan monies  General Fund and Road property taxes (Ptax and Rtax)  Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFTax)  Property developers from traffic impact fees or fees-in-lieu  Late-comer charges of succeeding property developments 13: Construct streetscape enhancements Downtown enhancement projects have reconfigured roadway lanes and parking areas, expanded sidewalks and inserted pavers, installed street trees, benches, and artworks on the segments of Kennewick and West 4th Avenues, Cascade, Benton, Auburn, and Washington Streets through the downtown district, and on Washington Street from Columbia Drive onto Clover Island. The enhancements calm traffic, provide for pedestrian access, and improve visual appearances and amenities that frame and define the downtown district and fronting retail stores and other pedestrian-oriented activities. Similar enhancements need to be provided in and between the BB/RR area, downtown, and Civic Center to integrate the districts and provide a unified image. The realignment of Columbia Park Trail to Klamath Avenue, Columbia Drive, and West 6th Avenue define the major east-west streetscape corridors within the BB/RR area and Civic Center. Fruitland, Dayton, Benton, Auburn, and Washington Streets define the north-south connections between the BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center. Grande Ronde, Entiat, and Deschutes Avenues will create the east-west connections to future pedestrian oriented developments along the swale/levee. Streetscape enhancements are not expensive, and in most cases, can be achieved thorough simple and low maintenance street tree plantings along the edges of the right-of-way and in the median where turning lanes are not needed. Sidewalk areas can be expanded to the edge of the rights-of-way and abut adjacent storefronts to create suitable walking areas and space for benches, planters, and other amenities. Action Therefore the Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Department will:  Expand sidewalks - to the edge of the right-of-way and abutting adjacent storefronts (from 8-12 or 14 feet in width) on Columbia Drive and the other defining east-west and north-south streetscape corridors between the BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center.  Upgrade transit furnishings – including route signage, directories, transit stops, shelters, and service schedules and routings on Columbia Drive and the other routes within the proposed BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center couplets (see task 15).  Improve pedestrian-friendly furnishings – installing a coordinated system of benches, waste receptacles, newspaper stands, bike racks, directory and wayfinding signage, and other people-oriented furniture. ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed streetscapes 1 Columbia Drive 8 Elm Street extension/access 15 Auburn Street 2 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 1-John Day 9 Bruneau Avenue 16 Washington Street 3 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 2–Kent Pl 10 Canal Drive 4 Klamath Avenue extension 11 6th Avenue 5 Grande Ronde Avenue extension 12 Fruitland/Garfield Streets Existing streetscape 6 Entiat Avenue extension 13 Dayton Street Proposed streetscape 7 Deschutes Avenue extension/access 14 Benton Street 2 3 4 8 5 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Klamath Ave Columbia Drive Grande Ronde Ave Entiat Ave Deschutes Ave Columbia Drive Bruneau Ave West 6th Ave Kennewick Ave West 4th Ave Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Clover Island Garfield St Dayton St Auburn St Gum St ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization 80 feet Columbia west of Fruitland – recommended standard 74 feet Columbia east of Benton 78 feet Columbia east of Washington 0 foot setback from ROW for present use and future development Alternating median with turn lanes and street tree plantings Columnar street trees limbed up to provide views under of auto sales and ground floor retail uses 10’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 10’ 12’ 12’ 10’ 10’ 12’ 10’ 12’ 12’ Existing 4-5 foot sidewalk expanded outwards to edge of ROW Illustrative Streetscape ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization  Install landscaping – including street trees, ground cover, and seasonal flowers in swales, green strips, and planter boxes with cisterns and other stormwater collection and watering systems under a “green street” planting concept.  Install artworks – using a competitive design jury process to select local artist works to display sale consignments at select places along the major pedestrian corridors for 1-2 year intervals.  Where appropriate – relocate and/or underground overhead power and telecommunication lines, and relocate light and signage standards in order remove visual blight and to plant street trees in a dense walkway-covering sequence, especially along Columbia Drive. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Departments Participant  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Auto Dealers Association  Property developers  Property owners and residents  Citizens at large Funding Sidewalk expansion and the installation of street trees and other amenities will be funded with:  Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)  General Fund and Road property taxes (Ptax and Rtax)  Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFTax)  Local Improvement District (LID) assessments  Transportation Benefit District (TBD)  Parking & Business Improvement Area (PBIA)  Developer project improvements  Late-comer charges of succeeding property developments 14: Construct sidewalks, curbs, and gutters Large segments of existing public roadways within the BB/RR area, and especially within the single family neighborhood between Columbia Drive and the railroad tracks west of Fruitland Street, lack basic sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements. The lack of basic roadway infrastructure does not manage stormwater runoff, does not define pedestrian from vehicle areas, and creates an underdeveloped appearance that does not invite private future investments or confidence. Where roadway infrastructure has been provided, the vehicle allocation is often over-configured providing more width for vehicle traffic lanes and parking and less accommodation for pedestrian crossings, especially at all major street intersections. Curbs and gutters have been extended around corners in line with on-street parking aisles creating extended crosswalks requiring longer walking distances and times. This leaves pedestrians relatively invisible until they are in the middle of the street. Pedestrian safety, comfort, and convenience is critical if the BB/RR area is to attract customers of ground floor retail activities, and upper floor employees and residents of more intensive use and reuse of available buildings and properties. The existing sidewalks could be extended into the street pavement at each intersection to increase pedestrian visibility to vehicle operators and thereby “calm” traffic and shorten crosswalk distances and walking times. The extensions could be planted with street trees, wayfinding signage, and other amenities without reducing traffic and on-street parking capacity or impacting street maintenance requirements. Action Therefore the Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Departments will:  Improve existing and future roadways with basic infrastructure – to include sidewalks, curbs, gutters, bike lanes ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed on-road walkway network 1 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 1-John Day 7 Elm Street extension/access Existing on-road walkways 2 Columbia Park Trail–relocate option 2–Kent Pl 8 Bruneau/Railroad Avenue open/alignment Proposed on-road walkways 3 Klamath Avenue extension 9 Railroad Avenue extension 4 Grande Ronde Avenue extension 10 Canal dike trail extension 5 Entiat Avenue extension 6 Deschutes Avenue extension/access 1 2 3 8 4 5 6 9 7 10 Blue Bridge/US-395 Cable Bridge/SR-397 Klamath Ave Grande Ronde Ave Entiat Ave Deschutes Ave Bruneau Ave Columbia Drive West Canal Drive Kennewick Ave West 4th Ave/Vineyard Drive West 6th Ave East 1st Ave East 3rd Ave Fruitland St Benton St Washington St Gum St Garfield St Dayton St ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization or designated shared roadways, and other improvements throughout the BB/RR area and within the single family neighborhood in particular.  Reconfigure existing roadway infrastructure to accommodate pedestrian and bikeways – using curb extensions, wider crosswalks, pedestrian signals, bike lanes and designated shared roadway lanes, and other enhancements.  Install transit improvements – including route signage, directories, transit stops, shelters, and service schedules and routings in the extended curb areas on Fruitland, Dayton, Auburn, and Washington Streets, and other collection points on the transit shuttle corridors and at the Dayton Transit Center. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Departments Participant  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Ben Franklin Transit  Property developers  Property owners and residents  Citizens at large Funding Roadway infrastructure including sidewalk, curb, gutter, and transit improvements will be funded with:  Road Fund Property Taxes (Ptax)  Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax proceeds (MVFTax)  Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)  Parking & Business Improvement Area (PBIA)  Local Improvement District (LID)  Stormwater Utility Funds  Developer funded project improvements  Late-comer charges of succeeding property developments 15: Reconfigure transit routes Ben Franklin Transit routes currently converge from cross-city routes to the Dayton Transit Center located on Dayton Street across from Kennewick High School and next to the Library using a couplet created by East 1st Avenue, Garfield and Dayton Streets, West 6th Avenue, and Auburn and Washington Streets. Four routes in particular also provide stops on roads within the BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center:  Route 46 - services the downtown and Civic Center from south Kennewick on Olympia, West Canal Drive, Fruitland Street, and East 1st Avenue.  Route 55 - services Columbia Park, BB/RR, the downtown, and Civic Center on Columbia Park Trail, Fruitland Street, and East 1st Avenue.  Route 120 - connects Kennewick with Pasco via US-395/Blue Bridge on West Canal Drive, Fruitland Street, and Columbia Drive but does not access the downtown or Dayton Transit Center.  Route 160 - connects Kennewick with Pasco via SR- 397/Cable Bridge on Kennewick Avenue, Washington Street, and Columbia Drive. None of the 4 routes, however, service the entire BB/RR area or provide a shuttle or looping service between the BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center that would facilitate resident, employee, customer, and tourist access. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department and HDKP will work with Ben Franklin Transit to:  Reconfigure route 55, 120, and/or 160 – to create a loop shuttle service between Columbia Park, BB/RR, downtown, and Civic Center using the relocated Columbia Park Trail on Klamath Avenue, Columbia Drive, Fruitland Street, East 1st Avenue, and SR-397/Gum Street.  Install transit improvements – including route signage, directories, transit stops, shelters, and service schedules and routings along the reconfigured BB/RR, downtown, Civic Center shuttle corridors. ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed transit network Route 46 Existing route – retained Route 55 Existing route - modified Route 120 Proposed routes Route 160 Dayton Transit Center 11 Klamath Ave Columbia Drive Columbia Drive East 1st Ave Kennewick Ave West Canal Drive Columbia Park Trail Blue Bridge/US-395 Cable Bridge/SR-397 West 6th Ave Fruitland St Dayton St Garfield St Auburn St Olympia St Washington St Gum St ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development and Public Works Departments Participant  Ben Franklin Transit  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Property owners and residents  Citizens at large Funding Transit route configurations and improvements will be funded with:  Ben Franklin Transit levee monies Design/development – catalytic projects 16: Acquire/develop Public Market and Excursion Train Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owns the vacant property between the BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) mainline and spur tracks from Fruitland east past Benton Streets including the depot which is currently used by train and yard crews for offices. The vacant and area has long been a major barrier and visual slight between the downtown and the BB/RR area. Kennewick acquired a lease for the property fronting both sides of Benton Street but did not acquire the property from BNSF or improve the site for a public use. The Historic Downtown Master Plan and UDAT Study both proposed reusing the site for public activities including a farmers’ market, downtown parking lot, and other special events staging. The Spirit of Washington Dinner Train originally operated an excursion train ride from the site using the UP spur track for staging and storage. The site must be acquired, improved, and programmed to provide public activities and events on a continuous basis throughout the year of interest to local residents as well as tourists if the area is to create a destination capable of integrating the downtown and BB/RR areas. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department and HDKP will:  Acquire the BNSF property – that the city originally leased from BNSF on both sides of Benton Street and seek to lease then acquire the depot and adjacent property as well if and when BNSF operations can be accommodated with other on-site facilities.  Improve the site – with security perimeter fencing adjacent the railroad tracks adorned with artworks, public parking lots with flat curbs that allow conversion into outdoor exhibit and festival spaces during special events, flexible outdoor plazas and gathering spaces that front public market and other indoor spaces, and street trees, light standards, artworks, and landscaping that provide aesthetic accents. Extend special pedestrian paving materials along Benton and between the 2 purchased parcels to calm traffic, provide pedestrian crossing safety, and define a gateway to the site and activities.  Develop a Public Market – with buildings with flexible ground floor space that can be subdivided for food, crafts, and art vendors during market events or left open for public presentations and other activities; and flexible upper floor space that can be used for classroom and instructions, galleries and exhibits, incubator workspaces and offices, and other multipurpose activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Proposed excursions 1 Dinner/Mystery Train Existing excursions Proposed excursions 1 Benton St Fruitland St BNSF BNSF ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Recruit market tenants and activities – to include the following:  Artists and art galleries – including working artists, instructors, galleries, and related entrepreneurs.  Incubator and start-up businesses – including start-up businesses and entrepreneurs from the surrounding city and region that will create, fabricate, or retail items of interest to market customers.  Public market vendors – including farmers’ market, wine and food, fine art workshops and galleries, performance artists and instructors, and other continuous and special event activities.  Public market concessions or tenants – including restaurants and cafes, coffee houses and wine bars, and other day/night activities of interest to residents and tourists.  Program continuous activities – to include coordination with farmers’ market vendors, key seasonal community and tourist events, and special sales activities of interest to merchants, community organizers, residents, and tourists of the city and surrounding region.  Program special events that are keyed to unique Kennewick historical occurrences – like Native American settlements, early agriculture developments, river steamboat landings, railroad development and services, winery establishments, and like events of historical importance to community residents and of interest to tourists.  Recruit an excursion train operator – to operate dinner, mystery, sightseeing, winery tours, and other train tours of the region using the UP track spur adjacent to West Canal Drive and the public parking lot improvement on the west side of Benton Street. Eventually, lease and acquire the BNSF depot and adjacent property to provide a ticket and passenger staging area with comfort and convenience facilities, historical exhibits of early railroad developments, an outdoor artwork gallery and platform loading area, and expanded parking area.  Install angled parking on West Canal Drive – on the north or south side to provide overflow parking for major events at the Public Market and downtown parking on a continuous basis. Install a security perimeter fence along the UP tracks the continuous length of West Canal Drive to prevent Public Market customers from walking across the tracks. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development and Public Works Departments and HDKP Participant  Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad  Union Pacific (UP) Railroad  Port of Kennewick  Ben Franklin Transit  Citizens at large Funding Public Market acquisition, development, and operation will be funded with:  Hotel/Motel Tax (HMtax)  Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET)  General Funds Property Taxes (PTax)  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)  63:20 Lease-to-Own Purchase Agreement  Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership 17: Acquire/issue RFP for incubator developments Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owns the vacant property between the BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) and spur track from Fruitland Street west to US-395/Blue Bridge right-of-way. The vacant and area has long been a major barrier and visual slight to the single family neighborhood on the north boundary. However, the property should be a logical extension of the light industrial and warehousing activities that have ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization clustered along Railroad Avenue and the BNSF and UP tracks east of Fruitland Street. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will:  Lease then acquire the property from BNSF – to allow the development of a complex of incubator buildings providing flexible shop, office, storage, retail and wholesale sales and exhibit space, conference and meeting spaces, shared or common business equipment and services, daycare and childcare, and possibly even some live/work spaces for start-up businesses and entrepreneurs.  Brainstorm redevelopment solutions for the property – accounting for concepts that may redevelop the property under alternative scenarios with or without rail service, in or outdoor shop and storage areas, public retail operations, day and childcare, and live/work spaces under different densities and designs.  Assess the economic feasibility of the preferred concepts – including land values, construction costs, indirect development costs – and the impact of direct and indirect incentives including variable term or rate lease arrangements, low interest development loans, development density, parking requirements, and land use or zoning bonuses.  Assess and mitigate environmental impacts – including on and off-site stormwater run-off, parking and loading area requirements, height and lot coverage allowances, design aesthetics, and public amenities.  Conduct public hearings and approve a pre-packaged plan solution – including appropriate property-specific development agreements, design guidelines, and SEPA MDNS or EIS mitigation documents.  Develop a competitive request-for-proposal (RFP) process - governing the sale or long term lease and redevelopment of the property for the preferred and pre-approved design/develop solution.  Conduct a town hall – with potential developers to tour the site, review the design concepts and project pro-forma, evaluate the RFP process, and incorporate their suggestions and comments in order to ensure an effective market response.  Issue the RFP and judge proposals – by fixing the asking price or leasing agreement for the property and ranking proposals on use, design, operational merits, and beneficial impacts on the property and the BB/RR’s development opportunities.  Award project – following City Council public hearings and review procedures, to the proposal ranked to have the most use, design, and operational merits, and beneficial development impacts on the neighborhood, industrial district, and BB/RR and downtown. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Departments Participant  Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad  Union Pacific (UP) Railroad  HDKP  Port of Kennewick  Citizens at large Funding Lease and acquisition of the property, and the design charrette, detailed feasibility assessments, project design guidelines, and SEPA documentation, and RFP process will be funded with:  Washington State Department of Commerce Growth Management Program (GMP) grants  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax)  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization These expenditures may be reimbursed by the successful developer. 18: Issue RFP for private property packages Significant portions of the properties located north of and between Columbia Drive and the stormwater swale/river flood levee are vacant or under-developed, particularly the northwest parcels. These properties have significant development possibilities for the BB/RR, downtown, and city-at-large for mixed use structures housing ground floor retail and pedestrian-oriented activities with upper floor offices and mixed income housing focused on the enhancements possible in the stormwater swale/river flood levee, as well as public activity spaces and nodes that the projects may produce proper. The northwest parcels in particular may also attract hotels and conference facilities as well as major restaurant and other regional as well as tourist-interested activities. However, private market developers and investors have and are not likely to initiate property options or purchases, or expend funds to develop major development proposals if the participants are uncertain about the short and long term future of the area, are unclear about what the public will approve by way of development proposals, and under long term financial commitments that do not include certainty. Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will:  Package potential development parcels – working with private property owners who are interested and willing to participate by establishing appraisal certified sales prices and option agreements allowing design/develop RFP competitions.  Brainstorm redevelopment solutions for the property – accounting for concepts that may redevelop the property under alternative scenarios as single or multiple phased projects, with mixed income housing, and under different densities and designs.  Assess the economic feasibility of the preferred concepts – including land values, construction costs, indirect development costs – and the impact of direct and indirect incentives including property acquisition write-downs, low interest development loans, development density or parking waivers, land use or zoning bonuses. In the case of affordable or work force housing, the incentives may also include deferral of some or all permit, building, connection, and impact fees.  Assess and mitigate environmental impacts – including on and off-site stormwater run-off, parking and loading area requirements, height and lot coverage allowances, design aesthetics, and urban amenities.  Conduct public hearings and approve a pre-packaged plan solution – including appropriate property-specific development agreements, design guidelines, and SEPA MDNS or EIS mitigation documents.  Develop a competitive design/develop request-for-proposal (RFP) process - governing the sale and redevelopment of the property for the preferred and pre-approved solution.  Conduct a town hall – with potential developers to tour the site, review the design concepts and project pro-forma, evaluate the RFP process, and incorporate their suggestions and comments in order to ensure an effective market response.  Issue the RFP and judge proposals – by fixing the asking price for the property and ranking proposals on use and design merits, and beneficial impacts on the property, BB/RR, downtown, and city at large development opportunities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization  Award project – following City Council public hearings and review procedures, to the proposal ranked to have the most use and design merit, and beneficial development impacts on the property, BB/RR, downtown, and city-at-large. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Departments Participant  Private property owners  Private property developers  BB/RR businesses and residents  Citizens at large Funding The design charrette, detailed feasibility assessments, project design guidelines, SEPA documentation, and RFP process will be funded with:  Washington State Department of Commerce Growth Management Program (GMP) grants  General Fund Property Taxes (Ptax)  Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) These expenditures will be reimbursed by the successful developer. 19: Review/approve master plan for Port of Kennewick’s Duffy’s Pond properties Duffy’s Pond and the properties located between the pond and Columbia Park between Washington Street and the SR-297/Cable Bridge are strategically and aesthetically important to the BB/RR, downtown, and city at large. The site may, depending on cultural inventory results, have significance to the Umatilla Tribe as a seasonal or permanent fishing, gathering, or meeting site. The site may also have been an early landing point for steamboats and other craft that hauled goods and passengers to Kennewick and surrounding communities on the Columbia River. In recent years, however, the site, particularly the land uses directly adjacent to the pond, have declined in activity, value, and appearance. Since most of the directly adjacent properties were in private ownership, the pond has been relatively inaccessible and invisible to the public even though it directly adjoins the Sacagawea Heritage Trail and Clover Island. The Port of Kennewick acquired the trailer parks that fronted onto Duffy’s Pond and a couple of commercial properties that front onto Columbia Drive with the objective of restoring the pond’s water quality, providing public access and amenities, and redeveloping the commercial properties for higher and more productive uses. The Port completed a process that elicited possible use and activity proposals from the public, developed preliminary site plans, and drafted a report for the Port’s properties and other privately-owned parcels between Columbia Drive and Duffy’s Pond, and Washington Street/Clover Island Drive and SR- 397/Cable Bridge. The Port reviewed the concepts and report with community organizations and City Council The Port’s proposed site improvements for the complete site including Port and adjacent private properties include the restoration of water quality in the pond, set-aside of a buffer area around the pond with perimeter trails and access points, an amphitheater, carousel, ice skating rink/vendor plaza, miniature golf, lawn bowling court, boat rental area, gondola ride, and pedestrian way. In addition, depending on economic feasibility, the Port concept includes a performing arts theater, IMAX theater, condominium building, mixed-use/live-work buildings, business offices, and wine tasting rooms on Port and adjacent privately owned properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Illustrative developments – Duffy’s Pond – Port of Kennewick Proposed Master Plan Port of Kennewick ownership ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Action Therefore, the Economic/Community Development Department will work with the Port of Kennewick to:  Resolve environmental issues and impacts – of the Port’s proposed master plan for its properties including water quality, width and location of buffer areas, roadway access and parking, gondola lines over Columbia Drive and Duffy’s Pond, and other SEPA issues.  Resolve park and trail improvements – including design, construction, and financing particulars for public access, activities, and relationships with Sacagawea Heritage Trail and the other public and privately-owned park enhancements proposed in this BB/RR Revitalization.  Resolve mixed use zoning allowances – including relationship to the proposed new mixed use zoning district proposed in this BB/RR Revitalization including setbacks, coverage, height, parking, and inclusionary zoning provisions for affordable housing.  Conduct hearings and resolve master plan approval particulars – by the Planning Commission and City Council allowing for adjacent property owner and public input concerning the Port’s proposals, site, and building improvements, and methods of implementation for Port properties and adjacent privately-owned parcels. Participants Approval - City Council Lead - Economic/Community Development, Parks, and Public Works Departments, Planning Commission, and Port of Kennewick Participant  US Corps of Engineers  Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW)  Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)  Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)  Duffy’s Pond private property and business owners  BB/RR businesses and residents  Citizens at large Funding The review of the master plan’s SEPA process and particulars, public hearings and resolutions will be funded with:  General Funds Property Taxes (PTax)  Port of Kennewick site and building plan permit fees and charges ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 Action Plan Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Implementation projects 1 Duffy’s Pond Restoration/Enhancement 8 Columbia Park Trail/Klamath Ave Alignment 15 Dinner/Mystery Train Excursion 2 Levy/River Habitat Enhancement 9 Railroad/Bruneau Avenue Extension/Alignment 16 Incubator Complex Development 3 Stormwater Swale Enhancement 10 Columbia Park Trail/Fruitland St Streetscape 17 Public Market Development 4 Jesernig Park 11 Columbia Drive Streetscape 18 Interpretive Center/Imax Theater 5 Riverfront Landing – Fruitland Street 12 Benton Street RR Crossing 19 Performing Arts Center 6 Entiat Park 13 Washington Street Streetscape Walkways/Bikeways/Canal Trail 7 Duffy Pond Park/Access 14 UP Spur Removal Gateways/Wayfinding Signage 5 1 15 16 7 3 2 1 10 6 10 9 13 8 14 4 6 7 9 9 12 11 11 14 15 17 18 19 West 6th Ave Garfield St Gum St Columbia Drive Columbia Drive Washington St Klamath Ave Grande Ronde Ave Entiat Ave Deschutes Ave Bruneau Ave Benton St Fruitland St ---PAGE BREAK--- A-1 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary This document summarizes the results of personal interviews conducted with 37 individual stakeholders in October and November 2009. Following is a summary of responses organized under each interview question asked. The summary statement under each question represents the interviewer’s attempt to identify the primary theme from all responses generated. Each interview was conducted as a conversation, focusing on areas relevant to the particular stakeholder and using the interview questions as a guide Stakeholders Interviewed Arculus Design & Technical Services - Steve Mallory, AIA, CSI Auto Dealers - Ken Williams Ben-Franklin Transit - Tim Fredrickson Ben Franklin Transit - Kathy Mullens Benton County - Mike Shuttleworth Benton County - Susan Walker Benton County Commissioner - James Beaver Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) - Art Tackett Benton PUD - Jim Sanders BNSF Railroad – Jan Ruby Jr CID - Keith Martin Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership - Tim Dalton Housing Authority City of Kennewick - Karlene Navarre Kennewick City Manager - Bob Hammond Kennewick General Hospital - Glen Marshall Kennewick Mayor - Tom Moak Kennewick Police Chief - Ken Hohenberg Kennewick School District - Doug Carl Port of Kennewick - Tim Artnzen Property Owner - Rudolph Jesering Tri-Cities & Olympia Railroad – Randolph Peterson Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council (TREC) - Kris Watkins Tri-Cities Young Professionals Group - Tyler Adams Tri-Cities Young Professionals Group - Melissa McAloon Tri-City Bicycle Club - John Ittner Tri-City Herald - Rufus Friday Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce - Edison Valerio Tri-City Home Consortium - Carol Evans Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce - Lori Mattson Tri-City Visitor & Convention Bureau - Kris Watkins TRIDEC - Carl Adrian TRIDEC - Kayla Pratt Three Rivers Community Roundtable - Mike Schwenk UDAT Member - Skip Novakovich Union Pacific Railroad – Terrel Anderson General Background 1: Describe your organizations interest or responsibilities in the Kennewick community and the Tri-City Area. Warm up question – did not record answers 2: As a place to do business and live what do you think are Kennewick’s greatest assets?  The Columbia river and shore line  An educated population  Community’s “can do” attitude  Central regional location  Pro-business attitude from city council  Community thinks regionally  Room to grow to the west  Low cost of living  Still has small town values  Excellent climate  Pro business attitude in community  Hard working service clubs  Varied recreational opportunities  Cooperative attitude  Leaders have the big vision  Downtown – unique stores  Clean, well kept image  Many quality transportation links ---PAGE BREAK--- A-2 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Booming local economy  Great public education system  An active port 3: Describe your organization’s (personal) interest or responsibilities in the BB/RR revitalization area. Warm up question – did not record answers 4: How would you describe your organization’s impact in the BB/RR revitalization area over the last 5 years? Warm up question – did not record answers 5: Given current conditions how would you describe the likely future evolution of the BB/RR revitalization area? Warm up question – did not record answers SWOT Assessment 6: What would you say are the major or opportunities of the BB/RR revitalization area? Summary Statement The major or opportunities of the district include:  the visual and physical access to the Columbia River,  the close proximity to the historic downtown,  the suitability of the district redevelopment potential,  Clover Island, Duffy’s Pond potential  the Port’s commitment to improvement, and  good circulation and access infrastructure. Summary of Most Significant Comments  Vibrant downtown historic area  Riverfront utilization potential  Can see river shore form bridges  Clover Island as it is and potential  Duffy’s Pond redevelopment potential  Proximity to downtown activities  A unique area to region and state  Current uses make redevelopment possible  Good automobile access  Infrastructure/transportation links  Port’s ownership and involvement  River based views and use  Is in a transition period  Water views from entire district  Cable bridge  The one area where major redevelopment can take place  The one chance to create a “go to “ place  Central to metro area  Entry portal to downtown  Good circulation within the district  Sacagawea trail  Port’s commitment to the area  Opportunity for mixed income housing  Historic downtown sign good  View of the bridges  Grain elevator reuse potential  Potential warehouse reuse  Partnership with the Port  Underutilized/valued land 7: What would you say are the major weaknesses or threats of the BB/RR revitalization area? Summary Statement The major weaknesses or threats to the district include:  the overall rundown appearance and underutilized land uses,  negative public perceptions,  lack of a major destination activity,  significant road blocks to revitalization including multiple small landownership’s, Corps and Tribes  a lack of appropriate zoning regulations and design standards,  difficult pedestrian and biking circulation and  no community endorsed revitalization plan. Summary of Most Significant Comments  Run down trailer parks ---PAGE BREAK--- A-3 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Difficult working with all the various interests  Little diversity - “outside” views not welcome  Levees  RR ROW cuts off downtown  RR have significant control  Community negative perceptions - “that’s the way it has always been” attitude  No consistent land use  No theme to area  Corps control of dikes  Difficult identifying how to “get started”  Multiple ownerships – difficult to create partnerships  Auto dealers not the best use of space  Truck traffic and speed on Columbia Drive  Small property parcels  General overall appearance  Interior transportation circulation a problem  Too much sprawl  Difficult a create “a place” critical mass  Current owners not interested in development  Inappropriate zoning  Most current uses must go or change  Lack of city support or follow through  No amenities on the trail  Duffy’s Pond in current condition  Old hotel near SR-395  Run down housing  No destination activity  View shed needs to be protected  Future uncertain  Not perceived as safe  Homeless population at Duffy’s Pond  Not on the way to anything  No public awareness of the area  Port Duffy’s Pond plan just a vision – can’t be implemented  Lack of design standards  No direct access to river  No contact with the water  The RR’s are a major distraction An Agenda for the Future 8: How can we capitalize on the riverfront, Duffy’s Pond, Columbia Park, and other recreational assets in the BB/RR revitalization area? Summary Statement We can capitalize on the recreational assets in the BB/RR revitalization area by:  Creating a clean safe and attractive district which the community will frequent  implementing the Port’s Duffy’s Pond Plan,  creating a point destination recreational activity  promoting mixed uses that expand public shopping, dining, living and recreational choices,  maximizing water contact and views,  capitalizing on the existing regional trail system and  making strong visual and physical connections with the historic downtown area. Summary of Most Significant Comments  Reduce and enhance the levees  Enhance Clover Island  Encourage mixed use  Create actual contact with water  Market the Clover Island Inn  Make it a lifestyle area  Create activities/festivals to occur in the area  Create levees similar to Columbia Park  Help existing business  Port plans should proceed  Develop a pride of ownership  Make the boat basin more user friendly  Manage pool levels  Provide appropriate directional signs  Buying more property in Duffy’s Pond area  Reroute and underground power lines  Create links to wine industry  Create a complete urban village  A “knock your socks off” development – world class ---PAGE BREAK--- A-4 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Implement UDAT plan elements  Remove blight  Make a place to live/work/play  Enhance trails and connections  Increase directional signage  Market the area amenities to target businesses  Create walking, shopping areas  Destination activity like an ice rink  Grass over the levees  Create a 24/7 community  Mixed uses along water’s edge  Create a dog park  “get on with it”  Look to other communities that have done it  Prioritize and enhance pedestrian safety  Establish consistent business hours  Create a regional draw  Direct contact with river  Create and implement design standards 9: How can we develop linkages between the river, downtown, school and civic campus, and other adjacent development areas? Summary Statement Linkages connecting the river, downtown, civic center and other development areas can be created by:  enhancing pedestrian/biker amenities throughout the district including an effective direction signage system  calming traffic along Columbia Drive, Washington Street and Fruitland Street  strengthening and improving pedestrian/biker amenities along Washington Street, Columbia Drive, and Fruitland Street  investigate constructing an overpass/underpass of the RR crossings on Washington Street, Benton Street or Fruitland Street  Connecting the district with other regional amenities by trail and water connections Summary of Most Significant Comments  Expand the trail system  Create a water taxi to Richland and Pasco  Create a public dock near Fruitland Street.  Make pedestrian friendly improvements along Washington Street, Fruitland Street and Benton Street  More parking incorporated in and along pedestrian corridors  Stairs up to the levees  No need for new connections  These connections are not important  Develop design themes for the various subareas  Develop a directional sign system  Get trucks off Columbia Drive  Traffic calming on Columbia Drive  Too far to muke a real link  Implement elements of the UDAT plan  Improve bike and pedestrian access on and off the bridges, especially the able bridge  Trail connections down Washington and Fruitland to downtown and civic center enhanced  Create bike lanes on bridges  Upgrade the RR crossings  Improve sidewalks throughout the district  Fill in the frontage gaps along retail streets  Pedestrian overpass over the RR  Create continuous pedestrian routes through the district  Underpass the RR crossing  Build green  Create a linear park along Canal Drive  Walking, biking as alternative to be promoted more  Improve RR crossings  Complete trail along levee through Duffy’s Pond  Benton is the best pedestrian bikers corridor  Change Washington and Fruitland into boulevard design  Streets not pedestrian friendly or safe 10: What businesses, industries, commercial, or other uses should we target for the BB/RR revitalization area in general and each of the 7 specific neighborhoods therein in particular? Summary Statement The businesses, industries, commercial, or other uses we should we target for the BB/RR revitalization area include: ---PAGE BREAK--- A-5 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  employment generating uses such as retail shops, specialty stores, eating establishments, overnight accommodations, service sector offices, recreational activity support services  uses that bring citizens and visitors to the area such as art galleries, book stores, arts and craft outlets, entertainment venues, wine industry theme services and a major recreation point destination  uses that capitalize on the location of trail activities and the rail lines such as bike/kayak rentals, excursion trains up the valley or to Hanford  uses that contribute to a 24/7 district such as clubs, theaters, restaurants, cafes and coffee shops. Summary of Most Significant Comments  Recruit fine restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, bookstores  Art galleries  Exploit wine country theme  Retail along Columbia Drive will be difficult  Tourist oriented family activities create a point destination activity  Arts and crafts markets  Resort hotel/motel  Encourage mixed uses  Fisherman’s Wharf atmosphere  Revitalize existing business  Mixed retail uses  Office space  Corporate headquarters  Places to meet and linger  Tourist, retail, in area 7 and light manufacturing warehousing in area 4  Unique specialty shops  Create an arts and entertainment center  Develop regional attractions  Office/retail/housing mixed uses  Upscale housing  Develop clover island to the max  24/7 community  Night life  Small performing arts venues  Excursion train along river  Dinner train back – to Prosser  Cultural events  Expand and enhance auto services in area 2  Improve the train depot  Performing arts center  Implement the port’s Duffy’s Pond plan  Attract new business types to the community  Develop theme for the area  Live/work  Medical offices and clinics  Develop an incubator and incubator programs for small business 11: What are your thoughts about auto row and what role will or should auto sales and service activities have in the BB/RR area? Summary Statement We should address the auto sales/services activities in the BB/RR district by:  creating an auto district theme  enhancing the Columbia Drive streetscape ROW to ROW adding new sidewalks, street lights, signage, street trees, and a median strip  create gateways to area 2 from SR 305 interchange  assisting in façade improvements and general property fix up  assisting owners in creating an association to market area Summary of Most Significant Comments  Develop an “auto” theme to area  Major streetscape improvements  Make it a “happening” place  Creates a poor to district  Ugly junky appearance  No future  Move them to another corridor  Concentrate auto services from SR 395 to Fruitland Street  Enhance building appearance  Fix up facades, repair paint buildings  Enhance the strip  Install additional traffic circles  Seems to work as is ---PAGE BREAK--- A-6 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Unsure of auto sales value to area  Assist with façade loans  Should stay and fix up the streetscape 12: What are your thoughts about Area 4 and what role will or should rail-oriented salvage, shipping, and warehousing activities have in the BB/RR area? Summary Statement We should address the current uses in Area 4 by:  encouraging and assisting the market initiated relocation of current salvage, scrape and recycling uses  screening with various landscape techniques uses unable or unwilling to relocate  developing use specific design standards  assisting the reuse of existing buildings to uses such as wine industry based activities  work with the RR’s to reduce the size and impact of their trackage and rights of way Summary of Most Significant Comments  Area needs to “people service” area  Move them out  Not sure it is important  Shift this use out to the finely area  Restore RR station to serve as a wine industry venue  Convert warehouses to vine tasting rooms  Clean up where we can  Develop design standards  Should be moved out to big Pasco  Need to reduce the width of the RR ROW  Retain the buildings but reuse  Screen it or hide it  Leave it to market transition  Not a problem  Landscape the area  Transition to high tech  Bring in other uses 13: What kind of housing opportunities should we seek to retain and enhance, and/or attract to the area and what kind of housing occupants should we seek to retain and/or attract? Summary Statement We should capitalize and maximize the opportunities for housing within the district by:  retaining and enhancing the current single family neighborhood in Area 3  encouraging mixed income, mixed use and mixed age projects  allowing for rental and ownership products  providing for high densities in Areas 1, 6, and 7  maximizing the river views for upper income housing Summary of Most Significant Comments  Allow for market rate housing  Provide for retirement and “empty nesters”  Ensure that multifamily rentals are available  Place housing near the levee  Maintain low density in some areas  Include the housing authority as a partner  Housing up over the levees  Mixed use – retail on ground floor  Mixed income looking over the levee  Maximize high density  Allow for high rises (above 5 stories)  Mixed type – rentals and condos  Upper price market units  Mixed income and use  Push the housing, have it lead  Upscale condos  Preserve single family area 14: What public improvements should we make to BB/RR revitalization area that would support your proposals above? Summary Statement We should take the following public improvement actions to promote the revitalization of the BB/RR district: ---PAGE BREAK--- A-7 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  ensure that adequate water, sewer, irrigation and storm drainage systems are in place  put in place appropriate zoning and landuse regulations  develop a brand theme for the district  implement traffic calming along Columbia Drive and Fruitland Street  upgrade the streetscape including bike lanes along Columbia drive from SR – 395 to SR-397, Washington Street from the levee to 6th Street, Fruitland Street form the levee to 1st Street and Benton Street from Columbia Drive to 3rd Street  investigate underpass/overpass at RR crossing on Washington, Benton and Fruitland Streets  develop a new public space/square and make improvements to Fruitland Park  assist the Port in property assembly for redevelopment and implementation of the Duffy’s Pond plan  create additional water access by developing a new river inlet area or floating pier  create a public point destination such as a museum or performing arts venue  promote and assist in the presentation of events, festivals, farmer’s market  utilize appropriate public funding for micro/façade loans Summary of Most Significant Comments  Upgrade public infrastructure  Create events, activities  Develop a point destination such as museums, Farmer’s Mkt.  Implement port’s plan for Duffy’s Pond  Create small pocket parks  Improve streetscape along Columbia Drive  Public environment image improved  An inlet in from the river  Assemble property  Be dramatic actions  Central public gathering place square  Tighten up land use regulations to eliminate unwanted uses  Create public access to water  Traffic calming  Cascade walk  Link Clover Island to east downtown  Upgrade all of the streetscapes  Install an RR ROW over pass at Washington Street or Benton Street  Create bike lanes on Columbia drive, Washington and Fruitland  Improve Fruitland Park  Trails, sidewalks, landscaping, open space, public gathering places  Set up several micro loan programs  Underground power lines  Public art  Investigate realigning Columbia Drive from Washington to Gum Street to provide additional uplands for Duffy’s Pond  Increase lighting throughout area 15: Who should take the lead or be responsible for making each of these improvements – the City, Port, private sector? Summary Statement Responsibility for implementing the improvements needed to revitalize the RR/BB district should be with:  The Port as lead  A partnership of Port and City  The City as lead  A special purpose entity Summary of Most Significant Comments  City primary lead  Port should be a major player  Don’t do join implementation – city should control  Port should lead the way  City/port partnership  Port should lead – city support  City needs to stop planning and get on with it  City support to the Port’s efforts  City to provide infrastructure , port to provide development expertise  Find a local project ‘champion” to promote work  Special entity if well put together  Uncertain/changing city priorities ---PAGE BREAK--- A-8 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 16: How should we finance these public improvements and/or private development projects in the BB/RR revitalization area? Summary Statement Financing public improvements and or public/private projects in the BB/RR district will have to consider the following issues:  public bonding or levy’s will be difficult if not impossible  use of condemnation will not be popular  a non government project “champion or spokesperson” should be recruited ASAP  a clear and understandable revitalization plan needs to be developed  city priorities need to match up with recommendations  a clear financing plan should be developed that lays out the “what”, “where”, “when” and “why”  the benefits in return for development needs to be very clear for the public  a new pioneer use in the district could show immediate success  identify other partners, such as, the PUD, Housing Authority and Council of Governments Summary of Most Significant Comments  Need “good” spokesperson for project  Visuals of plan  Get public buy in  No new taxes  No special business area organization  Must create private sector buy in  Bid’s, lid’s, public/private partnerships  No new taxes  No condemnation  Make a good case for public support  Find a major pioneer  Start with a good foundation and create success  Build a good case for public expenditures  This will be tough  City to reroute funds from south ridge and vista  Benton PUD to help underground power lines  Public bonds and levy’s  Grants, Loans  Changing city priorities  Inform to the public clearly about what when where why.  Must be sold to public – how does it benefit me?  Leverage local funds  Bring in many partners  LID type of funding  Private lenders need to be involved  Community needs to be sold before they will pay  Develop a clear well understood funding plan  Special purpose tax recovery programs  A logical case for public spending must be presented  Need to show results soon  Start with “low hanging” fruit  No bonding or levies Added Comments Do you have other comments or suggestion that would be useful in shaping a BB/RR Revitalization Plan?  Native Americans need to be involved  Previous plans did not have stakeholder support  Area not much in common with downtown  Corps has too much control over area outcomes  Council of government has approximately $100k available for lending in the area  People get corps fatigue  Area needs to be branded  Mixed city priorities a problem  City/port relationship is a problem  Council needs to approve plan first  General feeling that UDAT plan was impractical  Can the city follow trough?  Involve the tribes  Tumble weeds and floating debris are a problem at foot of causeway to Clover Island ---PAGE BREAK--- A-9 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Interviews of Railroad Representatives Terminal Superintendent BNSF RR – Jan Ruby Jr  BNSF operates 2 main lines through the Tri-Cities. The mainline runs across Columbia River on the RR bridge just east of the Cable Bridge then south along the Columbia River to Vancouver, then north or south. The secondary line runs across the same bridge through Kennewick then up the Yakima Valley and over Stampede Pass.  Weight and locomotive availability mostly dictate which route is used. The mainline takes almost all of the traffic.  BNSF operates on approximately 5 or 6 lines in Kennewick along the study area, several of which are owned by Union Pacific.  BNSF runs 4 trains of 10 to 20 cars daily through the area. RR traffic is declining on this route.  BNSF has 2 customers in the study area – AmeraGas and Twin City Foods.  BNSF crossing policy is 10 minute maximum blockage without train moving, if work requires a longer stay they will move train to open crossing briefly after 10 minutes.  BNSF is generally opposed to the reduction of ROW.  BNSF would cooperate with upgrading the crossings.  Reaves Geary in the Public/Private Division [PHONE REDACTED] is the principal contact.  BNSF canceled switching contracts with TC&O leading to a significant loss of revenue. CEO Tri-Cities and Olympia RR – Randolph Peterson  TC&O are a switching agent for BNSF  TC&O does not operate in the study area. The area of operation is Richland to Hanford area. TC&O track does come into the Columbia Mall area.  Freight comes in by TC&O rail then by truck up the valley.  The corporate office is on Washington Street in the study area  Suggested an excursion or commuter train along Columbia Park to the TC&O line at the Mall then out to Hanford.  The key to an excursion train is to avoid the Class 1 RR lines, costs would getting be too much.  Is willing to work with the BB/RR project. Manager Industry and Public Projects, Union Pacific RR – Terrel Anderson  New to the current position.  Needs DOT RR crossing numbers to get specific.  Estimates 7 trains a day through the corridor.  Is willing to discuss crossing upgrades on a 50/50 cost sharing basis. ---PAGE BREAK--- A-10 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-1 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Following are the results of the internet survey One for the Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail Revitalization Plan – the statistical results for each question are provided following the graphic summary. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-2 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-3 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-4 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-5 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-6 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-7 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-8 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-9 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-10 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-11 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-12 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-13 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-14 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-15 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-16 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-17 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-18 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-19 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-20 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-21 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-22 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-23 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-24 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-25 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-26 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-27 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-28 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-29 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- B-30 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Comments Shorter surveys would probably equal more completing participants. It's about the river. Make sure development is about reconnecting us to the resource that we borne of. RETAIN AND ADD MORE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE RIVER. Need to make the area feel more safe for shopping and entertainment. Great survey as far as I can tell. I would say try and put something in that gets the opinions of people on fixing up all the old buildings in this area as I believe if that can happen, it would greatly improve the area. There are just too many old business buildings in this area. The dead overgrown mini-golf course is definitely not a high point. It looked better when it was still in business. Probably not very good planning I suspect in this regard. Re-due the blue bridge road construction. The new development is not acceptable. It makes getting around very stressful. More outdoor dining options along the river, more artisan-type retailers, a place to spend a day shopping, picnicking or dining out. I feel badly for the folks in the mobile home parks, but the mobile home parks have to go to make room for newer, more aesthetically pleasing architecture and development. The BB/RR area has huge potential for development taking full advantage of the River Views and proximity to the Columbia River. If nothing else, certainly do not encourage more used car lots on Columbia Drive if you are trying to enhance the image of said area. Improve appearance of existing businesses and get rid of old rundown buildings. Remove all trailer courts in area in favor of condo style homes. Things to do for young professionals 21-35. Restaurants, movie theatre, outdoor activities, outdoor mall, place to go after work for happy hour and on the weekends. Also better shopping for this age group (Urban Outfitters) and even a Trader Joe's. Take down the levees. Remove trailer parks. Put some kind of actual attraction along the river. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-31 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Get rid of all the trees and bushes along the river in Columbia Park, you can't even see the river as you walk. Actually take care of Columbia Park. The whole park looks like crap, Hardly any nice grass or facilities. The nicest facilities in the park are the new bathrooms. Downtown is really nice. Good revitalization there. Just wish a lot of the businesses could stay around. Need something to attract people to go and shop there. Winery tasting rooms would be great. We are the only big city that I know of that has trailer parks. Seriously, who wants to go to Columbia Park. Would love to see the levees lowered. Better grass at Columbia park. Hermestan has a waterpark, Moses Lake and Ellensberg. When do we get one! Forget the carousel. Put it somewhere already. Kids will not appreciate all the money that has already gone into it. Stop wasting time and money and focus on Aquatic Center!! I do not like trees and other things along the roads because they are hard to see around when trying to get on from a side road. Just try to get on Clearwater from the Pub Tavern with all the garbage growing next to the sidewalk. Give more background information regarding question 11. While I am an informed member of the community, I am sure others who take this survey won’t know. Also - Add an option that reads don't know enough information'' to some of the questions. The accuracy of the answers will. New hotel and restaurants on Clover Island. The view driving to Pasco over Blue Bridge from Yelm is beautiful when the sun is rising, the buildings aren't very visible, but the lights are still on. Once the sun comes up and the lights go off, the buildings aren't very attractive. In fact, its the tree tops in the trailer park that are then the only nice thing too really see. Also, the types of clubs (music) you have in Downtown Kennewick detract from everything because the reputation is terrible; especially the stab and slab (Steakout), too many fights and other unsavory activity. The old houses east of 1st Ave on Kennewick Ave look nice and it looks like the north side homes have been cleaned up but once you get past Washington, they're dives. They look dirty, grimy, and dangerous - especially the corner of Washington and 1st. It's a defining line. Ceasing the trailer park property is unacceptable but you could certainly make the owner clean things up. You should try to ---PAGE BREAK--- B-32 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan get rid of the on Columbia Drive too. I know they have businesses there but they are first rate scam artists and have an earned reputation for their lies and unpaid bills. Try to keep the buildings limited to 2 stories. We don't need a bunch of high rises limiting the view for those who aren't in them. I like the idea of stores with housing above them as long as they don't look like the places across from Zips. No more apartment centers like the area between Hawaiian Village and 4th Avenue. It's a recipe for trouble. Is it safe to get rid of the levies? I would really like to see the riverfront along Columbia Drive cleaned up with more to do recreation wise. Also it would be nice if the streets and businesses were cleaned up around Columbia Drive, and add more restaurants, shopping would be nice. None. Quit spending our money. Develop the waterfront to bring in tourist. Buffering the waterfront restaurants etc. use townhouses or Condo's for maintaining a tax base. Put aside part of your annual budget so the city of Kennewick can fix the mess (roundabout), I will ask for his or her resignation. No Apartments or rental housing--just an invite for crime/gang activity. No high density housing like Parker Bros. development or the trailer park next to the old city shops--both have quickly become eyesores and what was the city thinking??? No We are not Seattle and should stay that way. Preserve history as much as possible. To many roundabouts and KPD needs to learn that they are NOT NYPD so stop acting like them. Seems like this survey is biased to say the BB/RR area is run-down and this survey is support to get more tax payer money. The area is industrial and a more concerted effort should be made to attract a major manufacturer that would create the tax base to support this planned spending. Cater to high end professionals & retired through condos/townhouses, wineries, galleries, office space etc. Install pilings in the river on & around Clover Island to build atop of, which gives us more square footage & doesn't harm our "precious" salmon. Get rid of the used car lots & mobile home courts, they will soon be a thing of the past anyway...Knock the dike down, level all the old buildings on Columbia Drive & put in tall professional office space, high end retail, build upward to stake claim on the view of our river & the fascinating Cable Bridge, i.e. time to get out of the 'dark ages' & grab the future, which is passing us by leaps & bounds daily. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-33 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan The revitalization area should be made into an upscale area. This is riverfront property and should be some of the nicest areas in the Tri-Cities. As it is, this area in question is the biggest slum in the Tri-Cities. Not only is this area perceived unsafe..it IS unsafe. We need to completely change this area and make it something we can be proud of. We, the public, need to retake this area. As it is now, it is embarrassing. I can't stress how bad this area is now. You can load this area with police, and they would do a great job protecting people, but it will still be a slum and not somewhere good people would spend time and money. I would like to see you go with a 100 year plan to purchase all the land between Columbia Drive and the river. Turn that area into a landscaped park, nature area landscaped similar to the Lewiston, ID riverfront. Develop everything south of Columbia Drive getting rid of all used car dealers etc and expand it into nice looking mixed use businesses and housing. Like I say, a 100 year plan, but let’s plan for our future generations now. You have to start somewhere. It needs to be more inviting and prices kept compatible with prices elsewhere in the Tri Cities. It seems these smaller stores charge more. It also has to appeal and feel safe to be there. Survey needs to include North Washington Street Look at how Richland has done their parks and downtown It needs beautified & rebranded. If I am shopping or looking for a place to go out and eat--I rarely think of "old" Kennewick b/c of its disjointed atmosphere & in the Parkade--its dirty condition at night. If I am going to enjoy these locations--it will be in the daylight and only b/c I am already in this area for work. When my family goes out--it is usually for a multiple event night-- and so we go to places where multiple services/family activities are available. That simply isn't the BB/RR/Downtown area. Make an open market with supporting business to HAVE AND ATRACT PEOPLE TO WALK AND ENJOY THEIR VISIT. Let's keep it natural. Development doesn't seem to help draw tourists. Advertisement of activities in the Tri Cities is the worst More green spaces and walking paths. Would also love to see better river crossing options for bicyclists. There is a real opportunity to make this area a nice pedestrian/shopping neighborhood and I hope that this goes in that direction. If question #28 really meant <18, there are 2 in my household under 18. The entrance with the roundabouts on the west side of Columbia Drive is confusing and uninviting, especially to those unfamiliar with the setup. Don't destroy the Columbia Drive area by filling up the area with condos, apartments, and such so that views and access to trails and the river are inaccessible to the rest of us. Don't overbuild. Keep the naturalness of the river, Duffy's pond, and the river shore. Tattoo parlors and antique shops are not places I care to frequent, therefore, there is little to draw me to the downtown area, except for David's shoes. When we first moved here in 1975 there was a drug store, a fabric shop, a great steak house, and other businesses that drew me to the downtown area. Now there are very few shops downtown that provide the things I wish to buy. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-34 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Adopt the Port of Kennewick Plan and tighten the links to downtown, enhance the west end and let the process fill in towards the river. Open up access to the riverfront and improve it so it can be used by all residents. This may involve new housing that is upscale but everyone likes a nice area with parks and restaurants. Would be nice to lower or remove the levees. Residents need to be considered first. I'm looking forward to seeing great improvements in the BB/RR district! Put some sort of entertainment venue, like an amphitheater, and an aquatics center, and make access to the river a high priority. Provide place for individual citizens to present proposal options for Citizen public review. Need to slow traffic down to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Improvements on the east end of Columbia Drive are very much needed as soon as possible. A park living experience along the shore. High density housing options for City-style living with a good green belt by the river front. Upscale living with boutique shops. Upscale nightlife further away from the riverfront. Upscale bars and boutique eateries (similar to San Diego's Gas Lamp district). Microbreweries and nightlife for the upscale metro-living made along the river front. The BB should all be an entertainment district. All should be water front property. That is where tourism dollars will come from. Riverfront development, athletic fields, entertainment. Nice beaches. Add more retail shopping like outlet malls, Starbucks, things that are on the West side of town. I would like to see the mobile home parks and business along the Columbia Drive District to be removed! I would like to the area be turned into a nice area where people can shop and dine. Get rid of the bars in downtown Kennewick. A lot of work has been done to make the area east of Washington Street along the bike path look nice, but the rest of the bike path to the west could use some beautification too. Don't just limit our resources to the elite who frequent Clover Island. Concerned that you are spending money on future plans when you are having problems maintaining what you already have, what w/talks of layoffs & cutbacks. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-35 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Get rid of 217 and 305 E Columbia Drive slums We need better access to the river and more public docks, tie-ons etc. Utilize the water, more docks for boaters to gain access to the parks. Attracted private developer to remodel Clover Island Hotel and provide boat moorage for out of town guests. Reach out to existing Kennewick residents but include the arts agencies, educational and technical skills groups and architects/planners outside of city hall. I think the largest concern is the aesthetic of the BB/RR area, specifically Columbia Drive. Landscaping, trees, and garden mediums would make for a dramatic improvement. I think that the mobile home area by the river should be turned into townhomes and apartments. In order to promote the initiative with residents, current residents of the impacted mobile home park should receive signing bonuses and lower rent if they reserve an apartment/townhouse. You can't completely displace people from their homes, but a mobile park along the river is very and is not profitable. STOP building Roundabouts We feel that spending money on this area is a waste of time and money. The entire area would have to be demolished and rebuilt in order to attract nice, family-friendly businesses. The area is dirty, grungy, unsafe, and not family-friendly. City money should be spent in areas (West Kennewick/Columbia Park) that are currently populated by families and professionals. The BB/RR area is out of the way for most shoppers in the Tri-Cities and has nothing to offer locals and visitors unless they want to buy a cheap used car. It is a shame that Cedars and Bateman Island are in such a poor location. These businesses and recent development would be better placed in west Kennewick and Columbia Park West. Please don't waste any more money in this area and use the money to water the grass in Columbia Park so we don't have to drive to Richland to visit their park and eat in their restaurants. Thank you for allowing non-Kennewick residents to participate. The previous generation really blew it when they ripped out the Green bridge - it could've been the connection that made redevelopment work on BOTH sides of the river... But at least you're trying. Maybe if a performing arts center could be right next to the Blue Bridge, and have egress through both Columbia Park and Columbia Park trail.. maybe... Mixed use development would rock!!! The Young leaders said "build a downtown' great - but it would be unethical and very expensive to evict everyone and push out the low income families. Also, there are many thriving businesses, and an eclectic mix sort of makes it cool. A public private partnership such as a community development organization that can support true mixed use development is critical. ALSO, go for low impact, sustainable development. Do what's RIGHT not what's easy. SET THE BEST example... don't ---PAGE BREAK--- B-36 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan cut corners, do it right the first time. Also build it for Kennewick, and for the rest of us... in the end, we, Tri-Citians have to live with it too. What do I mean by that? Well, for instance, whoever recommended the Convention Center be near the mall (and incidentally next to the jail and the least walk-able neighborhood in the region - oh wait, now Road 68 earns that title) were so clueless. No one goes to a convention to be near a mall just like the one at home. There is no infrastructure anywhere in TC's to support a REAL decent convention of the sort that goes to Portland or Austin because there's stuff to do at night. Even state-based organizations have difficulty finding a space with enough rooms for breakout sessions and hotel rooms... My professional organization had a convention in Wenatchee, because it has more to do at night within SAFE walking distance of their convention center/hotel! The mobile home parks need to go. Create a similar environment as the Columbia Point in Richland. Move the levy back and allow access to riverfront. Please do not pour more money into this project. The City of Kennewick needs to focus on priorities, such as creating desirable recreational opportunities for families moving to the Tri-Cities. The City currently lacks the nice park atmosphere (like Richland has developed) yet City management sits on a gold mine (Columbia Park and Columbia Park West). In order to retain young families within the City, the City management must begin focusing on recreation and things for people to do besides shop. Money would be much better spent to develop Columbia Park in its entirety. The park currently has problems which could be fixed cheaply, such as the removal of all the brush along SR 240 and limiting where people choose to do their inappropriate activities. The City does not seem overly concerned about creating a safe place (on the river and near the majorly visited areas) for families to visit and play. Granted there are lots of newer or well developed parks in the City, however with the exception of the park near the Playground of Dreams, the park remains an eye sore. The BB/RR project was a nice idea however the surrounding area is not a place where people from West Kennewick and Richland will visit. It is out of the way for shoppers headed to Columbia Center. It is inconvenient for patrons to travel from most locations in 2 of 3 of the Tri-Cities (or even West Pasco) to visit the BB/RR area. I have not talked to anyone who would move into a condo or a nice apartment in the area if the BB/RR was developed. The factor seems to be the surrounding “East Kennewick” atmosphere. The City needs to look at cities of similar sizes and learn from their successes. I use Boise (which in itself is much larger than Kennewick but not the Tri-Cities) but they have created a wonderful atmosphere along the river, numerous bike and hiking trails and Downtown parking is a big issue. Columbia Drive businesses/storefronts are dreary and old. A river view and shoreline enhancement is critical to the development. If these are not achievable, then you may as well enhance neighborhoods east of Gum street. ---PAGE BREAK--- B-37 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Re-contact all property owners personally and invite to these meetings. The area in question is not an area I currently want to take my children to. It is ugly and full of crime. The police department does a good job, but that area just attracts the bad people. Get rid of the trailer parks, labor ready, and the dishonest car sellers. If there was more family oriented things, places to shop, and I felt safe I would go to the area more often. The riverfront should be made upscale and desirable. Our city has an abundant amount of water front and none of it is even close to being used to its potential. I think to get things rolling that if we could get some investors to do a nicer hotel, an office campus and some nice restaurants that it would be more attractive. Then some entertainment or amphitheater might work. Leave Columbia Park alone! House boats on Lake Wallula Remove all the stupid roundabouts in the city of Kennewick and especially the mess that will not allow you to drive next to a truck as you enter and exit the city on SR-240. Those double roundabouts are the biggest "cluster" I have ever had the misfortune to navigate in a car, truck or and I am adamantly against any more developments that will include anymore of this type of traffic revisions and will continue to vote against any levy, bond or for that matter, elected individuals that support such nonsense. Need to create a better downtown environment for young professionals. The mobile home park at Clover Island is an eye sore and something needs to be done with that. Some sort of overpass over the railroad tracks - the traffic is horrendous because of the amount of train movement and it is Bull doze it all and start over I believe creating a wakeboarding cable park in the Duffy's Pond area is a great idea. I think it would also be a good idea to add other actions sports activities in the area such as a BMX/Skateboard park would be great as well. Possibly an area restaurants could build around so the patrons would have something to watch while they are eating. Upper city management should support the efforts of the planning personnel; upper city management should listen to the voices of the citizens. Don't over develop!!!! Preserve natural shoreline and access for everyone, not just the rich privileged few who can afford to buy or rent expensive townhouses!! ---PAGE BREAK--- B-38 Appendix B: Internet Survey Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan The survey should allow for persons to mark N/A or not known. To get more information from the public, the newspaper could help out better than they have. Unless Kennewick doesn't want the publicity. Make the BB/RR area have more activities for both residents and tourists. Make it a place where people want to go with their families for entertainment. Nope Please place a performing arts center in the BB/RR Revitalization Area. Push development back from the riverfront - have a natural park-like atmosphere along the river. Have mixed use/mixed income/denser development in the rest of the BB/RR area, but away from the river. No No Keep lighthouses at the ocean! Put Canal Street fish art in a place to enjoy it like downtown Kennewick. Better parking. A centralized parking spot surrounded by businesses. Recreation. Yes, see map (map says Build fishing pier here). Drawing depicts a pier that runs from the approximate location of the lighthouse on Clover Island southwest at a 45 degree angle to the levee trail. No ---PAGE BREAK--- C-1 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Neighborhoods Likes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Access - from SR-395 and Cable Bridge X X X X X X X X Access - to SR-395, Cable Bridge, rest of region X X X X X X X X Access - to river including fishing X X X X X Access - local street grid – functional X X X X X X Aesthetics – of Cable Bridge and night lighting X X X Auto Row – convenience of services and sales X X X Climate – sunshine and temperature X Clover Island Marina – view and activity X X X Clover Island – quality of redevelopment X X X Clover Island – relationship with city X X Columbia Park – relationship to riverfront X X Commercial on Columbia Drive - convenience X X Cost – of housing, properties X X Demographics - of city and district X Diversity - of uses and activities X X X Diversity - people friendly and diverse X X X Housing – single family neighborhood X Property/business ownership – local X Property/business ownership – potential X X X Levy – lowering and swale improvement X Noise – lack of, quiet neighborhood X X Railroads – 2 class 1 freight carriers X River - Lake Wallula for impounded river area X X Sacajawea Trail – views, location, and activity X X X X X Scale - of area and downtown X Tax rate - low X Traffic - access and volumes on Columbia Drive X X Trees – especially large trees in developed areas X X Veteran’s Memorial – adjacent Cable Bridge X X Views - north of river from hillside X X Views - of river, bridges, and marinas X X X ---PAGE BREAK--- C-2 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Neighborhoods Dislikes – features needing improvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Aesthetics – district lacks definition X X X X Appearances in general – need cleaning up X X X X X X Appearances – auto row X X Branding - lack of X X X Culture of area – drugs, transients, and crime X X X X X X Dark streets - add street lights for safety X X X X Dogs – pooper scooper requirement X Facades – no street/pedestrian definition X X X Gateways – need entry definition X X Land use – some incompatible X Momentum – lack of to date X Parking – for levy and river activities X X X X Preserve character of area in any improvements X Property ownership – too much rental X Public facilities – are none in area X Railroad tracks – crossing hazards X Railroad tracks and yard – barrier X River edges and water quality – improve X X X River activities – increase boat landings/access X X Road – Benton intersection turning visibility X Roundabouts – confusing, need better wayfinding X X X Roundabouts – too narrow for trucks X X X Seasonal parking – hydroplane races X Smells/odder – from produce plant X Strategy – need one X X X Streets – need resurfacing, curbs, gutters X X X Streetscape – need basic sidewalks, trees, etc X X X Traffic – volume on Columbia Drive X Trails – need on-road route definitions X Trails – need additional river/levy connections X X Underutilized - empty buildings X X X Underutilized lands and properties X X X ---PAGE BREAK--- C-3 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Neighborhoods Duffy’s Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Activities – create beach for swimming X Activities – create ice skating rink in winter X X X Activities – create water ski/wakeboard area X Activities – install amphitheater X Activities – install fishing pier towards Blue Bridge X Activities – install dock as bridge to island X Activities – paddle boat and canoe rentals in pond X X Activities – farmers’ market X X Activities – water park X Activities – active recreation X X Catfish Island – green area, small park X X X Levy – remove and relocate around pond X X X Land use – develop mixed use around pond X X X X X Land use – develop hotel adjacent Cable Bridge X Swale – expand pond west into swale X X Trails – expand around pond and onto island X X X Transit – loop around area to increase access X X Water quality – aerate/increase pumping into river X Wildlife – improve habitat conditions, views of X Neighborhoods Riverfront 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Access – increase direct access to river X X X X X Access – bridge over swales to levy top X X Access – improve connections with Columbia Park X X X Activities – wakeboarding park X Activities - fishing pier addn towards Blue Bridge X X X Activities – transient boat docks incl tour boats X X X Activities – extend railroad from Columbia Park X X X Activities – performing arts center X Activities – museum of transportation X X Activities – miniature golf X X Activities – family-oriented fun center X X X Activities – indoor community/recreation center X X X Activities – community gardens X Downtown – make river connections X X X Neighborhoods ---PAGE BREAK--- C-4 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Riverfront - continued 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Improvements – install lighting, other amenities X X X Parking – at convenient locations to levy X X X X Land use – create river oriented developments X X X Land use – create river oriented destinations X X Land use – houseboats X X X Levy surface – install landscaping inner and outer X X X X Levy surface – create more park-like nodes X X Levy outer – install beaches and habitat X X Levy – fill Clover Island shallows on west end X X X Swale – improve aesthetics – landscaping X X X X Swale – install furnishings X X Swale – create access over to levy X X X Swale – expand into wetlands and ponds X X Swale – cover over X Viewpoints – create views corridors on roadways X X Neighborhoods Auto Row – when separated from other uses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Aesthetics – better landscaping, signage, etc X X Auto mall – consolidate, relocate X Incompatible – with other developing uses X Important use – but not here X Land values- will intensify or relocate X X Parking – require on-lot rather on-sidewalk X X Streetscape – not pedestrian friendly X X Marketing – promote Auto Row brand X Off-loading of vehicles – median only area X Neighborhoods Industrial – when separate from other uses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Retain - historical railroad oriented X Parking/vehicle storage – relocate from roadways X View – install screening of junky areas X ---PAGE BREAK--- C-5 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Neighborhoods Railroads and railroad corridor area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Crossings – extend streetscape across tracks X X X Crossings – waiting shelters for bikes, people X Crossings – better road surface levelers X Farmers’ Market – depot to east of Benton X X X X X X Parking lot – depot to east of Benton X X X X Railroad – excursion/dinner train from BNSF depot X X Railroad – retain warehouse, industrial uses X X Transit center – between rails at BNSF depot X Landscape – create greenway X X Old tunnel at - reactivate X New crossing – west of Fruitland X Emergency access – improve connections X Under/overpass – from west end X X Spurs and sidings – remove unused (Port owned?) X Switch yards – relocate east or into Pasco X Neighborhoods Roads, transit, bikes, pedestrians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Benton – extend to river as road or view corridor X Bikeways – no access under/across bridges X X Bikeways – improve on-road throughout area X X X X Columbia Park – improve roadway connections X X X Columbia Trail – relocate away from levy X X X Columbia Trail – extend parallel levy Cable Bridge X Parking – place below new buildings X Roundabouts – on-ramp to Blue Bridge too narrow X X Streetscape – upgrade function, appearances X X Sidewalks – buffer from street edge X Trails – link levy trail to Clover Island X X Transit – improve shelters and waiting areas X X X Visibility – around corners, especially Fruitland X X Yellowstone Highway – Cable Bridge off-ramp X ---PAGE BREAK--- C-6 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Neighborhoods Density - building heights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Height – staggered lowest at shore, highest back X X Height - 5-story over parking/retail platforms X X X X X Height - 20-story – locate along shorelines X X X X Height – multiple, mixed use structures X X X X X Height – retain single family on west end X X X X X Levy – integrate new buildings into inside edge X View corridors – between buildings to shoreline X X X X Neighborhoods Occupants of revitalized area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Childless couples – in higher density housing X X X X Retirees - growing regional market segment X X X X X Snowbirds – retirement segment X X X X Families – important for diversity X X X X X Mixed income – including upper and affordable X X X X X X X X X Ownership – rather than rental X Workforce housing – affordable, mixed housing X X X X X X X Live-work units – in mixed use structures X Extended stay – time share condos X Elderly – assisted living X X X Neighborhoods Land use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Auto row – electric, smart cars, bikes, multi-modal X X Conference/convention – w/hotel developments X X Conference hotels – adjacent Blue/Cable Bridges X X X X X Education – technical or college X X Entertainment – cinema and performing arts X X X Entertainment – restaurant of family menu X X X Entertainment – restaurant and X X Entertainment – more microbrew, winery tasting X X Industrial – light and railroad related X X X Industrial – nuclear related X X Industrial – high tech Hanford incubators X X Interpretive – river, Native American, history X Interpretive – children’s museum, education, play X X Neighborhoods ---PAGE BREAK--- C-7 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Land use - continued 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Interpretive – agriculture, wineries, nuclear X Mixed use – with retail, upper floor office/housing X X X X X X Recreation – community center, workout facility X X X Retail – grocery and convenience uses X X X Neighborhoods Economics – sustainability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Incubators – of high tech industries X X X X X Retirement – will outlast Hanford cycles X X Neighborhoods Implementation agents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Kennewick/Benton County X X X Kennewick Housing Authority X Port of Kennewick X X X Umatilla Tribe X Corp Engineers X X PUD X BNSF & UP Railroads X Private developers X X X Property/business owners X X X Residents X X X Community Development Corp – nonprofit X Public Development Authority – public X Neighborhoods Momentum building 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 city1 city2 Artworks X Design standards – overlay performance zones X Duffy’s Pond – cleanup program w/volunteers X Duffy’s Pond – RFP on redevelopment potential X Facades – upgrade program X Landscaping – levy and swale X Marketing – branding and promotions X X Marketing – auto row promotional X Package - public and private properties for RFPs X X Public investment project – partner with private X Streetscape – through Auto Row and Duffy’s Pond X Wayfinding signage – to and through district X X ---PAGE BREAK--- C-8 Appendix C: Neighborhood/Citywide Workshop Results Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- D-1 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Appendix D: Capital Facility Programming - financial resources Kennewick can pursue a variety of financing methods for funding the BB to RR program projects. Following is a brief description of these possible financing techniques. 1: Financial resources – special programs/districts http://www.mrsc.org Lift: Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program CRF: Community Revitalization Financing Act CRL: Community Renewal Law PDA: Public Development Authorities MultiFamTX – Multifamily Tax Exemption Several Washington State laws provide local jurisdictions the opportunity to create special districts to facilitate the development of the community by capturing new revenue from existing taxing structures. These new revenues are then captured to pay debt service on the bonds issued to enhance infrastructure to improve the community. The following describes the current special districts available to Washington communities:  Lift: Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program - In 2006, the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) program was created and made available to certain local governments for financing local public improvement projects intended to encourage economic development or redevelopment. As part of the LIFT program, a sponsoring jurisdiction (city, town, county, port district, or federally recognized Indian tribe) creates a “revenue development area” from which annual increases in revenues from local sales/use taxes and local property taxes are measured and used. Such increases in revenues and any additional funds from other local public sources are used to pay for public improvements in the revenue development area and are also used to match a limited amount of state contribution. Nine projects have been awarded state contributions under the LIFT program. The projects are located in Bellingham, Bothell, Everett, Federal Way, Mount Vernon, Puyallup, Vancouver, Yakima, and Spokane County. The application process for the LIFT program is currently closed. Approval of additional projects and awards by CERB would require future legislative action  LRF: Local Revitalization Financing Program - In 2009, The Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) Program was created by Second Substitute Senate Bill 5045 (2SSB 5045). The LRF program authorizes cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a “revitalization area” (RA) and allows certain increases in local sales and use tax revenues and local property tax revenues generated from within the revitalization area, additional funds from other local public sources, and a state contribution to be used for payment of bonds issued for financing local public improvements within the revitalization area. This program is very similar to the LIFT program. Thirteen projects have been approved for state contributions under LRF. The projects are located in Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Federal Way, Kennewick (Southridge) Renton, Spokane, Tacoma, University Place, Vancouver, Wenatchee, Clark County, and Whitman County. The application process for awarding a state contribution is currently closed. This program is still available for use at the local level without a state contribution.  CRF: Community Revitalization Financing Act - In 2001, the Community Revitalization Financing (CRF) Act was created. It authorized cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a tax “increment area” and finance public improvements within the area by using increased revenues from local property taxes generated within the area. Some specifics•  An increment area cannot be created without approval of the local governments imposing at least 75 percent of the regular property taxes within the area ---PAGE BREAK--- D-2 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  The incremental local property taxes under this program are calculated on 75 percent of any increase in assessed value in the increment area.  Any fire protection district with geographic boundaries in the increment area must agree to participate for the project to proceed.  CRF increment areas are created and administered at the local government level.  The CRF Act does not include a state contribution. Status and availability of program:  There are currently five increment areas located in Spokane County.  This program is currently available for local government use  CRL: Community Renewal Law - RCW 35.81 was updated by the state legislature in 2002. The Community Renewal Law, as it is called, empowers cities “to undertake and carry out community renewal projects”. Community Renewal projects are defined as “undertakings for the elimination and for the prevention of blight or spread of blight”. Blight under this provision is defined as an activity or area that “substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the city or retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability, and/or is determined or constitutes a menace to the public, health, welfare and morals”. This provision gives cities the right to act on “economic blight”, such as persistent high levels of unemployment or poverty, excessive land coverage, tax delinquencies and defective or inadequate street layout, lot layout or obsolete platting”. Blight elimination and prevention can take the form of:  Acquisition and demolition of blighted areas or buildings  Construction of infrastructure  Making land available for development or redevelopment by private enterprise  Making loans or grants for job creation or retention The city may exercise the duties above or may designate a separate community renewal agency for those purposes. The city or the community renewal agency must prepare a Community Renewal Plan order to undertake any of the activities above Community renewal agencies typically are created either because the city concerned wants an independent “take charge” single purpose organization to push through the improvements or because multiple jurisdictions are involved. . Recent court decisions in eminent domain condemnation cases have called into question the ability of cities to condemn private property for economic development purposes.  PDA; Public Development Authorities- Under RCW 35.21.730, et seq., general purpose local government may establish "public corporations, commissions or authorities." These special purpose quasi-municipal corporations have become known as "PDA's." The statutory purpose for the creation of a public corporation under this statute is to improve the administration of authorized federal grants or programs, to improve governmental efficiency and services, or to improve the general living conditions in the urban areas of the state. The provision was initially enacted to authorize counties, cities, and towns to participate in and implement federally-assisted programs, including revenue sharing. Many communities have established public corporations for a variety of public purposes. In the opinion of many municipal attorneys, a public corporation created under RCW 35.21.730, et seq. is best used for unusual endeavors, which for a variety of reasons; the parent municipality would not want to undertake itself.  MultiFamTX – Multifamily Tax Exemptions - RCW 84.14 allows cities over 100,000 in population or the largest city in a county to create residential target areas where renovated or new multifamily housing projects of more than 4 units may upon application and acceptance receive a ten (10) year exemption from ad valorem property taxes. Each project must be within a designated area and provide 20 percent of all unit as affordable to low and moderate income residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-3 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 2. Financial resources – planning/technical assistance 2.1: State grants - WA Department of Commerce (DofC) http://www.commerce.wa.gov The Washington State Department of Commerce focuses on creating economic opportunities for local communities and strengthens the competitiveness of Washington State businesses. Funding programs include: MainSt - Downtown Revitalization-Main Street Approach DRP - Downtown Revitalization Program CDBG Planning - Community Development Block Grants GMP - Growth Management Program  MainSt: Downtown Revitalization-Washington Main Street – helps communities revitalize the economy, appearance, and image of their traditional business districts using a range of services and assistance to meet the needs of communities interested in revitalization. The Main Street Approach provides a flexible framework that puts the traditional assets of downtown, such as unique architecture and locally-owned businesses, to work as a catalyst for economic growth and community pride.  DRP: Downtown Revitalization Program - provides access to information, help getting focused, and community support and guidance to individuals and organizations interested in downtown revitalization. It also serves as a general clearinghouse for the latest tools and techniques in downtown development. General information, primary and secondary research, project development assistance information, and audio-visual and resource materials are also available.  GMP: Growth Management Program – provides assistance and guidance for planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Technical and financial resources are available from DofC to help local governments develop countywide policies, comprehensive plans, and development regulations.  CDBG Planning: Community Development Block Grants - Kennewick may use its CDBG funds for planning activities leading to the implementation of priority projects that principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons including:  Small area and neighborhood plans,  Strategies and action programs to implement plans including development of codes, ordinances, and regulations, and  Infrastructure planning. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-4 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 2.2: State grants - Department of Commerce Choose Washington Program http://www.choosewashington.com The Choose Washington Program is a subset of DofC and provides ready access to special state and local business assistance resources within the state. Programs include: SBI - Small Business Information BF - Business Finance Services MWBE - Minority & Women Business Enterprises and Women’s Business Center WTC - Washington Technology Center PWTF-P: Public Works Trust Fund Planning CERB-P: Project Specific Planning  SBI: Small Business Information – programs provides online referrals for business owners and entrepreneurs to websites and business assistance providers for information on starting and operating a business in Washington State.  BF: Business Finance Services - programs provide a range of business financing services and technical assistance. The program helps businesses obtain capital for start-up and expansion projects that create or retain jobs, stimulate private investment, increase local tax base, and strengthen community economic vitality. Federal dollars are combined with local revolving loan fund programs and private funds from banks and other sources. Local community leadership is relied upon to access the priority of proposed projects. Projects may be funded through 1 or more of the program’s 8 federally funded loan programs.  MWBE: Minority and Women Business Enterprises and Women’s Business Center– program assists minority and women- owned businesses to access resources and technical assistance to start or expand a business. MWBD provides entrepreneurial training, contract opportunities, bonding information, export assistance, and access to capital for start-ups or expanding businesses.  WTC: Washington Technology Center – of the Association of Washington Businesses works exclusively with Washington State companies and academic researchers to fund and facilitate market- driven, high technology focused, industry-university research and development partnerships to create economic development opportunities and enhance technology transfer statewide. 2.3 State grants – Public Works Board http://www.pwb.wa.gov The mission of the Public Works Board is to provide financial and technical assistance to Washington communities for critical public health, safety, and environmental infrastructure  PWTF-P: Public Works Trust Fund Planning – Upon Board approval loans up to $100k at 3% for 6 years available for infrastructure project planning purposes. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-5 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 2.4: State grants – Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) http://www.choosewashington.com The Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) is Washington's strategic economic development resource, focused on creating and retaining jobs in partnership with local government. CERB finances public infrastructure to encourage new development and expansion in targeted areas.  CERB-P: Project Specific Planning - CERB provides limited loan funding for studies which evaluate high-priority economic development projects. Projects should target job growth and long- term economic prosperity. 2.5: Federal planning grants 2.6: Economic Development Administration (EDA) http://www.eda.gov/ The Economic Development Administration, under the US Department of Commerce, was created to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in rural and urban areas experiencing high unemployment, low income, or severe economic distress. EDA works in partnership with state and local governments, regional economic development districts, public and private nonprofit organizations, and Indian tribes to empower communities to plan and implement locally and regionally-developed economic development and revitalization strategies. Programs include: EAP – Economic Adjustment Program PPG – Partnership Planning Grants STPG – Short Term Planning Grants  EAP: Economic Adjustment Program – supports strategic planning, project implementation, and revolving loan funds. Strategy grants help organize and carry out a planning process resulting in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) tailored to a community’s specific economic problems and opportunities. Implementation grants support activities identified in an approved CEDS which may include, but are not limited to, the creation or expansion of strategically targeted business development and financing programs such as, construction of infrastructure improvements, organizational development, and market or industry research and analysis. Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) grants may also be used to implement a CEDS.  PPG: Partnership Planning Grants - for economic development districts are awarded to establish and implement effective economic development programs such as the preparation and maintenance of Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS) and implementation of the elements of the strategy. PPG funds help EDA partners develop local comprehensive planning participatory processes leading to the formulation and implementation of economic development strategies.  STPG: Short Term Planning Grants - provide support for significant new economic development planning, policymaking and implementation efforts; and establish comprehensive economic development planning processes cooperatively with state and economic development districts. Eligible activities include the preparation and maintenance of continuous comprehensive economic development planning processes, coordination of multi- jurisdictional planning efforts, development of institutional capacity, diversification of local economic base, and implementation of programs, projects, and procedures designed to create and retain permanent jobs and increase incomes. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-6 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3: Financial resources - infrastructure Following is a brief analysis of the methods provided for by state and local law that the city may and has used to finance capital improvements. 3.1: Debt financing BFund - Borrowed Fund RBond - Revenue Bond IRBond - Industrial Revenue Bond GOBond - General Obligation Bond CBond - Councilmanic Bond BondCA - Bond Cap Allocation  BFund: Short-term Borrowed Fund - local governments may occasionally utilize short-term financing through local banks to finance capital improvement programs.  Rbonds: Revenue Bond - as authorized in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Council may issue nonvoter approved Revenue Bonds where principal and interest payments can be financed from a guaranteed source of revenue. Revenue bonds may be used to finance publicly owned facilities, such as parking garages or electric power plants. Interest rates tend to be higher for revenue bonds than for general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds may be approved without voter referendum. Revenue bonds have no effect on the city's tax revenues because they are repaid from revenues derived from the sale of services.  IRBond: Industrial Revenue Bond - are issued by a local government, but actually assumed by companies or industries that use the revenue for construction of plants or facilities. Industrial revenue bonds incur comparatively low interest rates due to the tax-exempt status, and are the responsibility of the private sector industry.  GOBond: Unlimited General Obligation Bond - local governments may issue "excess levies" or general obligation bonds that increase the regular property tax levy above statutory limits if the proposal is approved by over 60% of the voters in a general election. Unlimited general obligation bonds must be approved by at least 60% of the resident voters during an election that has a turnout of at least 40% of those who in the last state general election. The bond must be repaid from a special ("outside") levy that is not governed by the 1% property tax statutory limitation on the property tax growth rate. Total indebtedness that may be incurred by limited and unlimited general obligation bonds together, however, may not exceed 2.5% of the assessed valuation of the city. Monies authorized by limited (commissioner) and unlimited general obligation bonds must be spent within 3 years of authorization to avoid arbitrage requirements unless invested at less than bond yield. In addition, bonds may be used to construct but not maintain or operate facilities. Facility maintenance and operation costs must be paid from the annual general fund levy - which is subject to the 1% property tax statutory limitation on the property tax growth rate, or by voter authorization of special annual or biannual operating levy, or by user fees or charges where possible. General obligation bonds may be a useful source for capital facility acquisition and development monies, particularly for specific types of projects that have a broad appeal to the electorate.  CBond: Limited General Obligation (Commissioner or Councilmanic) Bond - Councilmanic bonds may be issued without voter approval by the City Council for any facility development purpose. The total amount of all issued limited obligation bonds may not exceed 0.75% of the assessed valuation of all city property. Limited obligation bonds must be paid directly from a dedicated or specially designated source from the annual proceeds of the city's general fund levy (an "inside levy") which is subject to the 1% property tax statutory limitation on the property tax growth rate. Therefore, debt service on limited obligation bonds may reduce the amount of annual revenue available for current operating expenses and the financial flexibility the Council may need to respond to annual budget priorities. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-7 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan For this reason, Councilmanic bonds are usually only used for the most pressing capital improvement needs. Therefore, Councilmanic bonds should be considered as a sparing source of capital facility development revenues in light of other funding requirements and limitations that the general fund must finance.  BondCAP: Bond Cap Allocation – program assists businesses and local governments to provide tax-exempt bond sales for environmental protection, housing, industrial development and facilities providing for electricity, water, and solid waste disposal. The program provides the legally required review and approval for the state to meet federal tax laws on the issuance of tax-exempt bonds classified as “private activity”. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-8 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3.2: Local multi-purposes levies PTax - Ad Valorem Property Tax B&OTax - Business & Occupation Tax LOSTax - Local Option Sales Tax MVETax - Motor Vehicle Excise Tax UTax - Utility Tax REET - Real Estate Excise Tax  PTax: Ad Valorem Property Taxes - cities may levy a general governmental property tax at a rate up to $1.80 per $1,000 assessed value. Cities may levy an additional $2.25 per $1,000 assessed value for road construction and maintenance needs on the assessed value of taxable property. In 2001, Washington State law was amended by a statutory provision limiting the growth of revenue realized from regular property taxes to 1% per year of the highest amount levied in the last 3 years before adjustments for new construction and annexation. If the assessed valuation of all property increases by more than 1% due to revaluation, the law requires the levy rate be decreased accordingly. A temporary or permanent excess levy may be assessed with voter approval. The statute was intended to control local governmental spending by controlling the annual property tax rate of growth. In practice, however, the statute can reduce the effective property tax yield to an annual level far below a jurisdiction's levy authorization, often resulting in a severe impact on a jurisdiction's ability to finance basic governmental needs, particularly if a county or city experiences major population growth. General funds may be used to develop every type of community facility including city halls, police stations and courts, park and recreational facilities, road and trail constructions, and most utility improvements. However, general funds should be considered as a last source of capital improvement revenues in light of other funding requirements and limitations that the general fund must finance.  B&OTax: Business & Occupation Tax – RCW 35.11 authorizes no more than 0.2% of gross value of business activity may be assessed on the gross or net income of businesses. Voter approval is required for any assessment or increase of the tax. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities.  LOSTax: Local Option Sales Tax – may be levied up to 1% of all retail sales and uses. Local governments that levy the second 0.5% may participate in the state’s sales tax equalization fund. Assessment of the option tax requires voter approval. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities.  MVETax: Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Washington State (RCW 82.44) collects an annual excise tax that is paid by motor vehicle owners and administered by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Cities receive 17% of the base allocation. Cities are required to spend these funds for police and fire protection and the preservation of public health. The revenues may also be spent on capital facilities including roadway improvements. RCW 47.30.050 requires that local governments collect and dedicate not less than 0.005% of the total amount of MVET funds received during the fiscal year for the purpose of developing paths and trails.  UTax: Utility Tax – RCW 82.16 authorizes a tax on the gross receipts of electric, gas, telephone, cable television, water and sewer, and stormwater utilities. Cities have the discretion of levying a utility tax up to 6% of gross receipts. Voter approval is required for an increase above the 6% maximum. Revenue may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities.  REET: Real Estate Excise Tax – RCW 82.46 authorizes local governments to enact up to 0.25% of the annual sales for real estate for capital facilities. The Growth Management Act authorizes another 0.25% for capital facilities. Revenues must be used solely for financing new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities, as specified in the capital facilities plan. An additional option is available under RCW 82.46.070 for the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas if approved by a majority of the voters of the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-9 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan The first and second REET may be used for the following capital facilities:  The planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, and storm and sanitary sewer systems, or  The planning, construction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks and recreational facilities. In addition, the second REET may be used for the following:  The acquisition of parks and recreational facilities, or  The planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of law enforcement facilities, protection of facilities, trails, libraries, administrative and judicial facilities, and river and/or floodway/flood control projects and housing projects subject to certain limitations. 3.3: Local single purpose levies HMTax - Hotel/Motel Tax EMSTax - Emergency Medical Services Tax TIB - Transportation Improvement Board LOVLFee - Local Option Vehicle License Fee SUC - Street Utility Charge MVFTax -AS - Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Arterial Streets MVFTax -CS - Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - City Streets LOFTax - Local Option Fuel Tax CPTax - Commercial Parking Tax TBD - Transportation Benefit District SDUFee - Storm Drain Utility Fee SDPay - Storm Drainage Payment in Lieu of Assessment  HMTax: Hotel/Motel Tax – is a sales tax levy collected on certain hotel and motel business categories for the purpose of promoting tourism. Revenues may be used for planning, promotional programs, or capital facilities that directly enhance tourism and benefit the hotel and motel industry.  EMSTax: Emergency Medical Services Tax – is a property tax levy of $0.25 for emergency medical services. Revenues may be used for new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities.  TIB: Transportation Improvement Board - the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) disburses revenues generated from motor vehicle taxes to cities, urban counties, and transportation benefit districts for the purpose of alleviating and preventing traffic congestion caused by economic development or growth. Projects must be multi-agency, multi-modal, congestion related, related to economic development activities, and partially funded locally.  LOVLFee: Local Option Vehicle License Fee - the Transportation Improvement Act (ESSB 6358 – RCW 82.80) authorizes countywide (no county levy) local option fees up to $15.00 maximum per vehicle registered in the county. Revenues are distributed back to the county and cities within the county levying the tax on a prorated per capita basis (1.0 for population in incorporated areas). Revenues must be spent for "general transportation purposes" including the construction, maintenance, and operation of county streets, country roads and state highways, policing of local roads, public transportation, high capacity transportation, transportation planning and design and other transportation related activities. The local option fee does not require voter approval.  SUC: Street Utility Charge – RCW 35.95.040 authorizes cities to charge for city street utilities to maintain, operate, and preserve city streets. Facility that may be included in a street utility include street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking facilities, and drainage facilities. Businesses and households may be charged a fee up to 50% of the acutual cost of construction, maintenance, and operations, while the city provides the remainder. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and may not exceed $2.00 per full-time employee per month. Owners or occupants of residential properties are charged a fee per household that may not exceed $2.00 per month.  MVFTax-AS: Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Arterial Streets - RCW 82.36 authorizes a tax that is collected by the Washington State Department of Licensing and paid by gasoline distributors. Cities ---PAGE BREAK--- D-10 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan receive 22.78% of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts. The revenues must be spent for "highway purposes" including the construction, maintenance, and operation of streets and roads.  MVFTax-CS: Local Option Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - City Streets - the Transportation Improvement Act (ESSB 6358) authorizes a countywide (no county levy) local option tax equivalent to 10% of statewide Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and a special fuel tax of $0.023 per gallon. Revenues are distributed back to the county and cities within the county levying the tax on a prorated per capita basis (1.0 for population in incorporated areas). Revenues must be spent for "highway purposes" including the construction, maintenance, and operation of county streets, county roads, and state highways, policing of local roads, county ferries, and related activities. The local option tax requires voter approval.  LOFTax: Local Option Fuel Tax – RCW 82.80 authorizes a countywide voter approved tax equivalent to 10% of the statewide Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and a special fuel tax of $0.023 cents per gallon. LOFT revenue is to be distributed to the city on a weighed per capita basis. Revenues must be spent for highway (city streets, county roads, and state highways) construction, maintenance, or operation; the policing of local roads; or highway related activities.  CPTax: Commercial Parking Tax – RCW 82.80 authorizes a tax on commercial parking businesses, but does not set rates. Revenues must be spent for “general transportation purposes” including highways, public transportation, high-capacity transportation, transportation planning and design, and other transportation- related activities.  TBD: Transportation Benefit District – RCW 35.21.225 authorizes cities to create transportation districts with independent taxing authority for the purposes of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding any city street, county road, or state highway improvement within the district. The special district’s tax base in used to finance capital facilities. The district may generate revenues through property tax excess levies, general obligation bonds (including councilmanic bonds), local improvement districts, and development fees. Voter approval is required for bonds and excess property tax levies. Council approval is required for councilmanic bonds, special assessments, and development fees. Transportation improvements funded with district revenues must be consistent with state, regional, and local transportation plans; necessitated by existing or reasonable foreseeable congestion levels attributable to economic growth; and partially funded by local government or private developer contributions, or a combination of such contributions.  SDUFee: Storm Drain Utility Fee – is a city or county authorized fee to support storm drainage capital improvements. The fee is usually a flat rate per residential equivalency based on an average amount of impervious surface. Commercial property is commonly assessed a rate based on a fixed number of residential equivalencies.  SDPay: Storm Drainage Payment in Lieu of Assessment – cities may authorize storm drainage charges in lieu of assessments that can be used for construction, maintenance, and/or repair of storm drainage facilities, acquisition of property or related debt service. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-11 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3.4: Local non-levy financing mechanisms RFund - Reserve Fund GMAFee - GMA Growth Impact Fee F&C - Fines, Forfeitures, and Charges UFee - Water, Sewer, Stormwater User Fees SUC - Street Utility Charges LID - Local Improvement District LID – Assessment Reimbursement Accounts SAD - Special Assessment District SPD - Special Purpose District Late-c – Latecomer Agreements EMS - Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services PRSA - Parks & Recreation Service Area PIA, PBIA - Parking & Business Improvement Area SEPA - State Environmental Protection Act Mitigation LAgrt- Lease Agreements Prvt - Privatization CXF- Current Expense Fund  RFund: Reserve Funds - revenue is accumulated in advance and earmarked for capital improvements. Sources of funds can be surplus revenues, funds in depreciation reserves, or funds resulting from sale of capital assets.  GMAFee: GMA Growth Impact Fees - the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA - Chapter 36.70A of the Revised Code of Washington and RCW 82.02.050-090) authorizes cities and counties to collect growth impact fees from developers to offset the impact caused by new developments within each jurisdiction's boundaries. The growth impact fees may be collected from developers in an amount less than 100% of the cost of sustaining the jurisdiction's schools, transportation, and park facility existing level-of-service (ELOS) as a result of the developer's project impact. The growth impact fees are usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. A developer may elect to pay the growth impact fee rather than provide on-site improvements when the:  land is determined to not be suitable for school, road, or park purposes and/or  the development can not sustain a comparable school, road or park improvement and/or  for other reasons jointly determined by the developer and the city. Impact fees are flat rates per person or dwelling units (by number of persons per type). Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for school, road or park costs that are paid by other sources of revenue such as grants and general obligation bonds. Additional credits may be given to developers who contribute land, improvements or other assets. Impact fees authorized by ESHB 2929 do not include any other form of developer contributions or exaction. Other forms of exaction that are excluded consist of mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - RCW 43.21C), local improvement districts or other special assessment districts, linkage fees, or land donations or fees in lieu of land. Growth impact fees can only be used to acquire or develop new school, road, or park facilities, and not to maintain or operate facilities or programs. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed by growth and not for current levels-of-service or operating expenses deficiencies. The collected fees must be spent within 6 years of the date of collection for a facility improvement that benefits the service area within which the project was located. Impact fees must show a rational nexus of benefit between the payer of the fee and the expenditures of the fee. Growth impact fees can provide a major source of project monies for all types of school, road or park acquisitions and developments. This assumes the assessed fee amount is close to the real or 100% impact and the city and county collect the fee on an area-wide basis within the urban growth area. In accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), a city must have an adopted comprehensive plan in place ---PAGE BREAK--- D-12 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan that satisfies GMA requirements before the jurisdiction can implement a growth impact fee.  F&C: Fines, Forfeitures, and Charges - includes various administrative fees and user charges for services and facilities operated by the jurisdiction. Examples are franchise fees, sales of public documents, property appraisal fees, fines, forfeitures, licenses, permits, income received as interest from various funds, sale of public property, rental income, and all private contributions to the jurisdiction. Revenue from these sources may be restricted in use.  WUFee: Water User Fees - under state law, cities may collect rate charges from each residential and commercial consumer, usually based on the volume of water used per account. Water utility user fees may be charged on a flat fee per account, usually at time of development, and thereafter on a measurable quantity of water consumed per account. The revenue may be used for capital facilities as well as operating and maintenance costs.  SUFee: Sewer User Fees - under state law, cities may collect rate charges from each generator of wastewater. User fees are based on the amount of potable water consumed, on the assumption there is a correlation between water consumption and wastewater generation. Sewer utility user fees may be charged on a flat fee per account and are usually collected at the time of development, and thereafter on a assessed charge per volume of waste generated per account. Fee revenues may be used for capital facilities as well as operating and maintenance fees.  SWUFee: Stormwater User Fees - under state law, cities may collect rate charges from each generator of stormwater runoff. Impact or user fees are based on the amount of stormwater generated per developed property that is not held on-site, on the assumption there is a correlation between off-site discharge and stormwater improvements elsewhere in the city. Stormwater utility user fees may be charged on a flat fee per account and are usually collected at the time of development, and thereafter on a assessed charge per volume of stormwater generated per account. Fee revenues may be used for capital facilities as well as operating and maintenance fees.  SUC: Street Utility Charge – may be fees up to 50% of actual costs of street construction, maintenance, and operations charged to businesses and households. The tax requires voter approval. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and cannot exceed $2.00 per employee per month. Owners or occupants of residential property are charged a fee per household that cannot exceed $2.00 per month. Both businesses and households must be charged. Revenue may be used for activities such as street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking facilities, and drainage facilities.  LID: Local Improvement District - property owners may petition (or vote in response to a request from a local government) to adopt an annual tax assessment for the purpose of improving the public right-of-way abutting their property. A majority approval (the percentage to be decided by the local government) can establish an amortized payment schedule to finance sidewalk, landscaping, parking, streetscape, or other improvements to the public or private abutting properties. The assessments may be amortized over generous time periods at low interest charges based on each property's proportionate share of the improvement cost - usually assessed on a linear foot frontage formula.  LID ARA – Assessment Reimbursement Account Local Improvement District - RCW 35.43.188 provides a mechanism by which a major property owner/developer can undertake to make local improvement district assessment payments on behalf of owners of “underdeveloped” properties within an LID. This enables a major developer to commit to paying LID assessments for properties that are not ready to develop but which are subject to assessment because they benefit from the infrastructure improvements financed by an LID. Assessment reimbursement accounts can be established by a city in an LID formation ordinance. The ordinance provides that LID assessments on properties the city council deems “underdeveloped” will be paid by a major property owner who ---PAGE BREAK--- D-13 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan elects to undertake payment for others. “Underdeveloped” means properties that the council determines are undeveloped or are not developed to their highest and best use, and are likely to be developed or redeveloped before the dissolution of the district.” Dissolution of an LID means the time when all LID assessments have been paid, a date that is typically later than when all an LID’s bonds are retired.  SAD: Special Assessment District - service entities completely or partially outside of the jurisdiction. Special assessments are levied against those who directly benefit from the new service or facility. Special assessment districts include local improvement districts (LIDs), road improvement districts (RIDs), utility improvement districts (UIDs), and the collection of development fees. Funds must be used solely to finance the purpose for which the special assessment district was created. Note – most cities require property owners to covenant not to protest the formation of a LID for street and UID for utility improvements as a condition of development permits where appropriate. This is one of the primary strategies for making improvements for growth.  SPD: Special Purpose District – RCW 67.38.130 authorizes a specified service often encompassing more than one jurisdiction. Included are districts for fire facilities, hospitals, libraries, metropolitan parks, airports, ferries, parks and recreation facilities, cultural arts/stadiums and convention centers, sewers, water flood controls, irrigation, and cemeteries. Voter approval is required for airport, parks and recreation, and cultural arts/stadium and convention districts. Special assessment districts have the authority to impose levies or charges up to a funding limit of $0.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Special assessment district funds must be used solely to finance the purpose for which the special purpose district was created.  Latecomers Agreements - Latecomer agreements, also referred to as recovery contracts or reimbursement agreements, allow a property owner who has installed street or utility improvements to recover a portion of the costs of those improvements from other property owners who later develop property in the vicinity and use the improvements. Two different statutes, chapter 35.72 RCW for streets, and chapter 35.91 RCW for utilities, govern these. Both chapters now allow a municipality to be considered as a property owner that can be reimbursed under a latecomer agreement, per a 2009 change in chapter 35.91 RCW  EMS: Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services – state legislation authorizes up to $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation property tax levy that may be enacted by fire and hospital districts, cities and towns, and counties.  FIF: Fire Impact Fees – RCW 82.02.050-090 authorizes a charge (impact fee) to be paid by new development for its “fair share” of the cost of fire protection and emergency medical facilities required to served the development. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities necessitated by growth, and not to correct existing deficiencies in levels of service. Impact fees cannot be used for operating expenses.  PRSA: Parks & Recreation Service Area – RCW 36.68.400 authorizes voters to approve formation of park and recreation service areas as junior taxing districts for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance, or operation of any park, senior citizen activity center, zoo, aquarium, or recreational facility. PRSAs may assess up to $0.15 per $1,000 assessed valuation subject to voter approval. A PRSA can generate revenue from either the regular or excess property tax levies and through general obligation bonds, subject to voter approval. Revenue must be used for capital facilities maintenance and operation.  PIA: Parking Improvement Areas or Commercial Parking Tax - the Transportation Improvement Act (ESHB 6358) authorizes a tax on commercial parking businesses based on gross proceeds or the number of parking stalls, or on the customers similar to an admissions tax. The revenues must be spent for "general transportation purposes" including the construction, maintenance, and operation of streets, public transportation, the planning and design, and other transportation related activities such as parking. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-14 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan A majority approval of the participating property owners (the percentage to be decided by the local government) can establish an amortized payment schedule to finance off-street parking or other improvements of benefit to the participating properties. The assessments may be amortized over generous time periods at low interest charges, based on each property's proportionate share of the improvement cost - usually assessed on a per parking stall formula.  PBIA: Parking & Business Improvement Areas - Chapter 35.87A RCW authorizes counties, cities and towns to establish, after a petition submitted by businesses within the area, or by resolution adopted by the legislative body, a parking and business improvement area for the purposes set forth in RCW 35.87A.010. A parking and business improvement area (PBIA) is designed to aid general economic development and to facilitate merchant and business cooperation. A PBIA is a local self-help funding mechanism that allows businesses and property owners within a defined area to establish a special assessment district. Funds raised can be used to provide management, services, facilities, and programs to the district. The activities in a parking and business improvement area are financed through a special assessment that is imposed on businesses, multifamily residential developments, and mixed-use developments located within the geographic boundaries of the area. The assessments can be used to finance:  construction, acquisition, or maintenance of parking facilities in the area;  decoration of public areas;  promotion of public events in public places in the area;  furnishing of music in any public place in the area;  provision of maintenance and security of common public areas; or management, planning, and promotion of the area, including the promotion of retail trade activities in the area.  SEPA: State Environmental Protection Act - Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - RCW 43.21C) allows local governments to impose mitigated on-site improvements or fee assessments with which to finance off-site improvements that are caused by a property's development. SEPA mitigation may cover a variety of physical improvements that are affected by the property's proposed land use including sidewalks, trails, roads and parking areas, utilities, and other supporting infrastructure systems. SEPA mitigation must be proportionately related to the property's impact on infrastructure requirements.  LAgrt: Lease Agreements - allow the procurement of a capital facility through lease payments to the owner of a facility. Several lease package methods can be used. Under the lease-purchase method, the capital facility is built by the private sector and leased back to the local government. At the end of the lease, the facility may be turned over to the municipality without any future payment. At that point, the lease payments will have paid the construction cost plus interest.  Prvt: Privatization - generally defined as the provision of a public service by the private sector. Many arrangements are possible under this method ranging from a totally private venture to systems of public/private arrangements, including industrial revenue bonds.  CXF – Current Expense Fund – those regular sources of revenue to the city such as local state sales tax and property tax shares that are used for general city functions. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-15 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3.5: State grants and loans LIHTC – Low Income Housing Tax Credit CERB - Community Economic Revitalization Board OAHP - Office of Archaeological & Historic Preservation - Historic Preservation Tax Certification Program CLG - Certified Local Government PWTF - Public Works Trust Fund ROC-Recreation and Conservation Office CF - Conservation Futures ALEA - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act MVET-PTR – Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Paths & Trails Reserve TEA21 - Transportation Efficiency Act TEA-21 R/HCIP - Railway/Highway Crossing Improvement Program STP - Surface Transportation Program FABRP - Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program FAER - Federal Aid Emergency Relief UATA - Urban Arterial Trust Account TIA - Transportation Improvement Account TIB - Transportation Improvement Board CCWF - Centennial Clean Water Fund Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund CCFF - Child Care Facility Fund BFTA - Building for the Arts CSFP - Community Services Facilities Program LCP - Local Capital Projects NCIP -Job Creation & Infrastructure  LIHTC – Low Income Housing Tax Credit - The LIHTC is based on section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code enacted in 1986 and made permanent in 1993. By providing a credit against tax liability or a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of liability, the LIHTC is an incentive for individuals and corporations to invest in the construction or rehabilitation of housing for low-income families. Tax credits have become the single most important source of capital subsidy in the development of affordable rental housing. The Washington State Housing Finance Commission administers the LIHTC program in this state.  CERB: Community Economic Revitalization Board - are low interest loans (rate fluctuates with state bond rate) and occasional grants to finance infrastructure projects for a specific private sector development. CERB funding is available only for projects that will result in specific private developments or expansions in manufacturing and businesses that support the trading of goods and services outside of the state's borders. CERB projects must create or retain jobs. The CERB distributes CERF funds primarily to applicants who indicate prior commitment to project. CERB revenue is restricted in the type of project and may not be used for maintenance and operations. CERB supports the following business sectors - Manufacturing, production, food processing, assembly, warehousing, industrial distribution, advanced technology and research and development, recycling facilities, or businesses that substantially support the trading of goods and services outside of Washington State borders. In rural counties, CERB can support tourism development projects that meet the program’s primary goal of supporting business growth and job creation.  HPG: Historic Preservation Grants – are available on an annual basis from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) to local historic preservation programs. Historic preservation grants may be used for:  historic preservation planning;  cultural resource survey and inventory;  nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic Places; and  public education and awareness efforts. To be eligible for grants, communities must be a Certified Local Government (CLG) as approved by OAHP. In addition, when funds are available, OAHP awards grants for the acquisition or rehabilitation of National Register listed for eligible properties. Grant awards are predicated on the availability of funds and require a match.  Historic Preservation Tax Certification Program – is a federal investment tax credit available for buildings in Washington that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. National Register properties must be income producing, which includes ---PAGE BREAK--- D-16 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan commercial, retail, office, residential, rental or industrial uses, to be eligible.  CLG: Certified Local Government – can be awarded to a local government that establishes a historic preservation program meeting federal and state standards. CLG status requires a local government to encourage, develop, and maintain its local preservation efforts with development plans. CLGs may also apply for special grants from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), obtain technical assistance and training from the SHPO, participate in the National Register nomination process, and assist with statewide preservation programs and planning. CLGs may also quality for a Special Tax Valuation available for both commercial and residential properties that have rehabilitation costs equaling 25% of more of the buildings assessed value. The rehabilitation costs may be subtracted from the assessed value of the property for a period of 10 years.  PWTF: Public Works Trust Fund - are low interest loans for financing capital facility construction, public works emergency planning, and capital improvement planning. To apply for the loans, the city must have a capital facilities plan in place and must be levying the original 0.25% real estate excise tax (REET). The Washington State Department of Community Development distributes Public Works Trust Funds. Public works trust fund loans for construction projects require matching funds generated only from local revenues or state shared entitlement revenues. Public works emergency planning loans are at a 5% interest rate, and capital improvement planning loans are no interest loans with a 25% match. Public works trust fund revenue may be used to finance new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities. PWTF funds may be used for domestic water, storm sewer, solid waste recycling, sanitary sewer, road, and bridge projects.  ROC: Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office - makes federal monies available for the construction of outdoor park and trail facilities from the National Park Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).  CF: Conservation Futures - under provisions provided in recent state legislation, counties can elect to levy up to $0.065 per $1,000 of assessed valuation of all county properties to acquire shoreline and other open space lands. The monies can be used to acquire, but not develop or maintain open space conservation lands that are acquired using Conservation Futures funds. Conservation Futures revenues can be a major source of project monies for the acquisition of wildlife habitat, resource conservancies, portions of resource activity lands, and possibly portions of linear trail corridors. Given the program's relatively specialized qualifications, however, the grants can not be a capital source for development projects. In addition, project proposals necessarily have to compete for a share of Conservation Future revenues with other county open space land acquisitions for storm drainage, farmland preservation, floodplain protections or other qualifying programs.  ALEA: Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act - the 1985 Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act (ALEA) initiated on a trial basis, and since renewed and expanded, uses revenues obtained by the Washington Department of Natural Resources from the lease of state owned tidal lands. The ALEA program is administered by the ROC for the development of shoreline related trail improvements and may be applied for the full cost of the proposal.  MVET-PTR: Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Paths and Trails Reserve - Washington State (RCW 82.44) collects an annual excise tax that is paid by motor vehicle owners and administered by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Cities receive 17% of the base allocation. Cities are required to spend these funds for police and fire protection and the preservation of public health. The revenues may also be spent on capital facilities including roadway improvements. RCW 47.30.050 requires that local governments collect and dedicate not less than 0.005 of the total amount of MVET funds received during the fiscal year for the purpose of developing paths and trails (the Paths and Trails Reserve). The Paths and Trails Reserve was established under State of Washington RCW 47.30 to provide for the establishment and maintenance of paths and trails within the right- of-way of public roads. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-17 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Special revenue funds like the paths and trails reserve can create a source of dedicated financing for specific trail projects or local area improvements. Generally, however, the reserves will not create the amount of funds necessary to implement facility projects of a scale needed throughout the city. The concept must be employed on a wider scale, or the concept needs to be supplemented by other financing devices if city needs are to be satisfied.  TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century – the extended program for the Inter-modal Surface Transportation Act or ISTEA) grants – Congress authorized a series of federal grants beginning in 1991 (and since re-authorized) to be used to enhance major traffic highways and corridors. The grants, which may total up to 86.5% of a project’s cost, are decided on a competitive basis on a regional level for the purpose of expanding the inter-modal use of and transportation enhancement of roadways for other than vehicular activities, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. Transportation enhancement activities may include improvements to any of the following surface transportation facilities:  Facilities for pedestrians and bicycles,  Safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicycles,  Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites,  Scenic or historic highway programs including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities,  Landscaping and other scenic beautification,  Historic preservation,  Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities including historic railroad facilities and canals,  Preservation of abandoned railway corridors including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails,  Control and removal of outdoor advertising,  Archaeological planning and research,  Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff,  Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity, and  Establishment of transportation museums.  TEA-21-R/HCP: Railway/Highway Crossing Improvement Program – TEA-21 grants may also be used to fund activities for safety improvement projects to eliminate hazards at rail/highway grade crossings including the elimination of grade crossings through over or under passes. Improvement projects may install new crossing protection devices, passive crossing protection devices, upgrade existing signal devices, railroad crossing closures, and pedestrian crossing improvements for high priority projects.  STP: Surface Transportation Program – Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) provides grants for road construction, transit, capital projects, bridge projects, transportation planning, and research and development. Projects must be on the regional TIB list, and must be for roads with higher functional classifications and local or rural minor collectors. STP funds are available on a 86.5% federal/13.5% local match based on highest ranking projects from the regional TIB list.  FABRP: Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program – WSDOT provides grants on a statewide priority basis for the replacement of structural deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Funding is award on a 80% federal/20% local match.  FAER: Federal Aid Emergency Relief – WSDOT provides grant funding for restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid system that are damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic failures on a 83.13% federal/16.87% local matching basis.  UATA: Urban Arterial Trust Account - are revenues available for projects that alleviate and prevent traffic congestion. The State Transportation Improvement Board distributes UATA entitlement funds subject to guidelines and with a 20% local matching requirement. UATA revenue may be used for capital facility projects that alleviate roads that are structurally deficient, congested with traffic, or have accident problems.  TIA: Transportation Improvement Account - are revenues available for projects that alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development or growth. The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board distributes TIA entitlement funds with a 20% local match requirement. TIA revenue may be ---PAGE BREAK--- D-18 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan used for capital facility projects that are multi-modal and involve more than one agency.  TIB: Transportation Improvement Board – invests state gas tax funds in local community through 6 grant programs serving cities, urban counties, and transportation benefit districts in Washington State. The TIB identifies and funds the highest-ranking transportation projects based on criteria established by the Board. TIB programs include:  Small City Program (SCP) – for projects in cities with population under 5,000 based on condition of the pavement, roadway geometrics, and safety. SCP grants may also be used for up top 95% of the local 23.5% match on federally funded bridge replacement and TEA-21.  City Hardship Assistance Program –  Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program – funds pedestrian improvements for safety, pedestrian generators, convenience, public acceptance, and project cost.  NewStreets for Small Cities -  CCSF: Centennial Clean Water Fund – are grants and loans administered by the Department of Ecology under the Centennial Clean Water Program (Referendum 39), a water quality program that provides grants for up to 75% of the cost of water quality/fish enhancement studies. CCWF monies can be applied to public and park developments that propose to restore, construct or otherwise enhance fish producing streams, ponds or other water bodies. CCWF funds are limited to the planning, design and construction of water pollution control facilities, stormwater management, ground water protection, and related projects.  Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund - are low interest loans and loan guarantees for water pollution control projects. The Washington State Department of Ecology distributes loans. The applicant must show water quality need, have a facility plan for treatment works, and show a dedicated source of funding for repayment.  CCFF: Child Care Facility Fund – provides financial assistance through loans and grants to employers and child care businesses. Applicants must be a licensed child care business in Washington or an applicant for a license or a child care provider having a contract with an employer to provide child care services. Loan amounts may range from $25,000 to $100,000, grants between $5,000-$25,000. Applicants may be for-profit or not-for-profit businesses, sectarian organizations are not eligible. Loans funds may be used to:  Start or expand a licensed child care facility,  Make capital improvements in an existing DSHS-licensed child care facility,  Acquire personal property for a child care facility that is depreciable under federal tax code,  Purchase child care program equipment, or  Pay for operational costs during the first 3 months of a new child care facility.  BFTA: Building for the Arts – provides state grants through DofC to performing arts, art museums, and cultural organizations to defray up to 20% of the cost of new facilities or major renovation projects to match monies raised locally from non-state sources. The program intent is to fund temporary construction jobs as well as permanent arts-related jobs and employment opportunities in business that support new arts facilities.  CSFP: Community Services Facilities Program – provides nonprofit organizations that serve families and children with state grants through DofC to help with the capital costs of new facilities or major renovation projects. The state’s contribution, which cannot exceed 25% of the cost of the facilities, must be matched by funds from non-state sources.  LCP: Local Capital Projects – provides state appropriates for capital construction projects that benefit local governments and nonprofit organizations. Each appropriate, sponsored by the Governor or the Legislature, is tailored to the needs of the recipient organization.  JCIP: Job Creation & Infrastructure – provides targeted capital facilities funding for local governments and community nonprofits to stabilize and stimulate the state’s long-term economic through infrastructure development. Previous JCIP projects have funded a ---PAGE BREAK--- D-19 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan wide range of capital facilities including small business incubators, ball fields, wastewater treatment plants, parks, and museums. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-20 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan 3.6: Federal grants and loans CDBG - Community Development Block Grants CDBG Float Loans - Community Development Block Grant Float Loans CDBG - Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program SBA7a - Small Business Administration Loan 7(a) SBA504 - Small Business Administration Loan 504 CDBG – Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program - FAUS - Federal Aid Urban Systems FASP - Federal Aid Safety Programs FAER - Federal Aid Emergency Relief FHAWPS - Farmers Home Administration Water Project Support DOHWSS - Department of Health Water Systems Support  CDBG: Community Development Block Grants - the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program dispense annual entitlement funds to Kennewick for the development of local public facilities or services assisting low income or disadvantaged neighborhoods.  CDBG Float Loan: Community Development Block Grant Float Loans –Kennewick is eligible to apply for a grant under this program in order to extend a short-term loan to a private business entity under the following conditions:  demonstrates that public financing of the project is necessary and appropriate to create or retain jobs,  provides an unconditional, irrevocable Letter of Credit in the full amount of the principal and interest of the due as collateral for the loan,  agrees to create jobs and make the majority of them available to qualified lower-income candidates (job retention may also be considered as a qualifying factor),  HUD108: HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program – are available to businesses through cities and counties that are eligible to receive CDBG s program assistance. A city or county eligible to apply may obtain a 108 Loan Guarantee for a private business that meets the following criteria:  Need for assistance is appropriate given the type of project,  Project will create jobs, and if qualified lower-income candidates are available, the majority of jobs will be made available to them (job retention may be considered),  Proposed repayment is 20 years or less,  Other reasonable financing alternatives have been exhausted,  Request is not less than $700,000 nor more than $7,000,000,  The sponsoring jurisdiction has less than $7,000,000 in outstanding Section 108 Loan Guarantees.  SBA7a: Small Business Administration Loan 7(a) – is the most common SBA loan or guaranty loan. The lender lends its own funds and the SBA guarantees up to 90% of the loan against default – which the lender may sell on the secondary market. The 7(a) program may be used to obtain long-term financing for business needs including working capital, machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures, leasehold improvements, building acquisition or construction, and in some cases, debt consolidation. Maximum size limits for SBA eligibility are under $3,500,000 in retail or service business sales, less than 100 wholesale employees, and less than 500 manufacturing employees.  SBA504: Small Business Administration Loan 504 – may lend loans for economic growth on a ratio of $35,000 for each job created. Loan funds can be used for fixed asset acquisition including land, building, and equipment for more than $200,000 in project size on a below market fixed rate. The SBA loan is subordinated to the first private loan or lien.  FAUS: Federal Aid Urban System - are revenues available for the construction and reconstruction improvements to arterial and collector roads that are planned for by an MPO and the Federal Highway Administration. FAUS funds may also be used for non- highway related public mass transit projects. The Washington State Department of Transportation distributes FAUS funds with a 16.87% local match requirement.  FASP: Federal Aid Safety Programs – are revenues available for improvements at specific locations that constitute a danger to vehicles or pedestrians as shown by frequency of accidents. The Washington State Department of Transportation distributes FASP ---PAGE BREAK--- D-21 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan funds from a statewide priority formula with a 10% local match requirement.  FAER: Federal Aid Emergency Relief - are revenues available for the restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid system that are damaged by extraordinary natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The local agency must declare an emergency and notify the Washington State Department of Transportation. FAER entitlement funds are available with a 16.87% local matching requirement.  FHAWPS: Farmers Home Administration Water Project Support - grants, loans, and loan guarantees may be used for water projects serving rural residents. FHAWPS funds must be used for capital facilities construction and related costs or projects that serve rural residents in cities of less than 10,000 people. FHAWPS funds are distributed by the Federal Farmers Home Administration (FHA) with a 45% to 25% local matching requirement.  DOHWSS: Department of Health Water Systems Support - are grants for upgrading existing water systems, ensuring effective management, and achieving maximum conservation of safe drinking water. The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) distributes DOHWSS grants through intergovernmental review and with a 60% local match requirement. ---PAGE BREAK--- D-22 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Funding sources - planning Special Programs/districts Lift: Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program CRF: Community Revitalization Financing Act CRL: Community Renewal Law PDA: Public Development Authorities MultiFamTX – Multifamily Tax Exemption State grants – DofC MainSt - Downtown Revitalization-Main Street program DRP - Downtown Revitalization Program SBI – Small Business Information BF – Business Finance Services MWBD - Minority & Women Business Development WTC - Washington Technology Center GMP - Growth Management Program Federal grants - EDA EAP - Economic Adjustment Program PPG - Partnership Planning Grants STPG - Short Term Planning Grants Funding sources - infrastructure Debt financing BFund - Borrowed Fund RBond - Revenue Bond IRBond - Industrial Revenue Bond GOBond - General Obligation Bond CBond - Councilmanic Bond BondCA - Bond Cap Allocation Multipurpose levies PTax - Ad Valorem Property Tax B&OTax - Business & Occupation Tax LOSTax - Local Option Sales Tax MVETax - Motor Vehicle Excise Tax UTax - Utility Tax REET - Real Estate Excise Tax Local single purpose taxes HMTax - Hotel/Motel Tax EMSTax - Emergency Medical Services Tax LOVLFee - Local Option Vehicle License Fee SUC - Street Utility Charge MVFTax -AS - Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Arterial Streets MVFTax -CS - Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - City Streets LOFTax - Local Option Fuel Tax CPTax - Commercial Parking Tax TBD - Transportation Benefit District - Flood Control Special Purpose District SDUFee - Storm Drain Utility Fee SDPay - Storm Drainage Payment in Lieu of Assessment Local non-levy financing RFund - Reserve Fund GMAFee - GMA Growth Impact Fee F&C - Fines, Forfeitures, and Charges UFee - Water, Sewer, Stormwater User Fees SUC - Street Utility Charges LID - Local Improvement District LID – Assessment Reimbursement Accounts SAD - Special Assessment District SPD - Special Purpose District Late-c – Latecomer Agreements EMS - Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services PRSA - Parks & Recreation Service Area PIA – Parking Improvement Area PBIA - Parking & Business Improvement Area SEPA - State Environmental Protection Act Mitigation LAgrt- Lease Agreements Prvt - Privatization State grants and loans LIHTC – Low Income Housing Tax Credit CERB - Community Economic Revitalization Board OAHP - Office of Archaeological & Historic Preservation - Historic Preservation Tax Certification Program CLG - Certified Local Government PWTF - Public Works Trust Fund ROC-Recreation and Conservation Office CF - Conservation Futures ---PAGE BREAK--- D-23 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ALEA - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act MVET-PTR – Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Paths & Trails Reserve TEA21 - Transportation Efficiency Act TEA-21 R/HCIP - Railway/Highway Crossing Improvement Program STP - Surface Transportation Program FABRP - Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program FAER - Federal Aid Emergency Relief UATA - Urban Arterial Trust Account TIA - Transportation Improvement Account TIB - Transportation Improvement Board CCWF - Centennial Clean Water Fund Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund CCFF - Child Care Facility Fund BFTA - Building for the Arts CSFP - Community Services Facilities Program LCP - Local Capital Projects NCIP -Job Creation & Infrastructure Federal grants and loans CDBG - Community Development Block Grants CDBG Float Loans - Community Development Block Grant Float Loans CDBG - Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program SBA7a - Small Business Administration Loan 7(a) SBA504 - Small Business Administration Loan 504 CDBG – Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program – FAUS - Federal Aid Urban Systems FASP - Federal Aid Safety Programs FAER - Federal Aid Emergency Relief FHAWPS - Farmers Home Administration Water Project Support DOHWSS - Department of Health Water Systems Support ---PAGE BREAK--- D-24 Appendix D: Capital Facilities Programming Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Rail (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- E-1 Appendix E: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Appendix E: What is a design/develop competition – and why should we use it on the BB/RR Revitalization Plan? Conventional development process What is a conventional development process? Under a typical conventional development process, a developer obtains an option on a property from the private property owner stipulating that the developer will pay the owner’s purchase price on condition that the developer is able to:  complete a due diligence on the property to make sure there are no environmental or legal hindrances to development (usually required from the seller prior to the option agreement),  obtain city approval for a development of the developer’s choosing, and  secure financing for the approved project (if the developer is not self-financed). A typical option may be for 6-12 months or more and/or subject to option extensions or renewals at the developer’s discretion. The developer typically pays an option fee which is rolled into the purchase price if the developer completes the purchase, or paid to the property owner in the event that the developer decides not to pursue the purchase even if the developer is able to obtain the conditions stipulated. What are the risks/benefits to the developer of a conventional development process? The primary benefit to the developer is that the developer avoids committing to a purchase until or unless the developer is able to complete the stipulated conditions – which typically involve obtaining city approval for a development of the developer’s choosing. If the developer cannot get approval for the development of their choosing, the developer can cut short their costs and move on without being encumbered with the property. This can be very important for properties that involve rezones, major development issues, or controversial positions – meaning the developer cannot tell initially what the city and community will accept and approve for development on the property. If the developer can get approval for what they want to do, then the developer has not committed the cash necessary to close on the property until the developer is assured that they can develop the property as they wish. This is very important for developers who are not self-financed as they cannot get financing approved or investors interested until they have a viable, doable, approved project. How long do options usually extend – or how long does it typically take for a developer to meet their requirements under the conventional development process? Depends – typical process will involve:  conducting introductory meetings with city staff and Planning Commission,  sometimes participating in workshops with the public or neighborhood,  developing schematic site and building plans and reviewing them with staff, Planning Commission, and public,  refining schematic site and building plans to level of detail necessary to get preliminary approvals,  completing a MDNS environmental checklist to the satisfaction of city staff,  that is not appealed by the public. ---PAGE BREAK--- E-2 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization (BB/RR) Plan These tasks require the developer to commit a significant amount of time and money, even on non-complicated, non-controversial projects over a minimum period of 6-12 months. The out-of-pocket and financed costs can reach 10% (through schematic design) of the value of the completed project. On a complicated or controversial project, this may also involve:  completing a partial or full environmental impact statement (EIS) including possible studies and analysis of traffic, shoreline, soils, archaeological, or other element,  entertaining an EIS appeal by a public agency or the public that may require additional clarifications or even studies, and  appealing a disapproval or site or building or use conditions mandated by the Planning Commission to a Hearing Examiner or City Council. These additional or protracted tasks can cost considerably more than 10% of the value of the completed project and may never be completed to the developer’s, city, or public’s satisfaction. Typically, developers will walk away from a project if they have not purchased the property or until or unless the returns diminish to the point where it is not profitable to continue to pursue the project and/or the existing or potential investors lose interest. What are the benefits/risks to the property owner of a conventional development process? The primary benefit to the property owner - is that they have a potential buyer of the property (possibly for the owner’s asking price) if the developer’s conditions can be satisfied. And, that the property owner will receive the option money in the event the developer cannot complete the conditions or decides to walk away. The primary risks or disadvantages to the property owner are:  The property is off the market for the duration of the option or until the developer decides to exercise it and buy the property or walk away and forfeit the option money (which can be for an extended period of time),  Should be developer be unable to get a project approved, even if not exactly to the developer’s wish, the property inherits a market stigma concerning what other developers will think about their ability to obtain an approval, or  If what can be readily approved for development on the property is not considered to be marketable or profitable enough to interest other developers. The principal downside of the conventional development process to the property owner and developer is uncertainty and time – which is money. Design/develop competition The principal objective of the design/develop competition approach is to remove uncertainty to the property owner, developer, city, and community and reduce the time (and cost) required to complete the process. What is a design/develop competition? Under the design/develop competition approach, the property owner agrees to sell their property for a fixed market price under an option to the city (or a public agency) rather than to a developer. In return, the city completes the pre-planning and design on the property engaging in:  introductory meetings with city staff and Planning Commission,  sometimes participating in workshops with the public or neighborhood,  developing alternative schematic site and building plans and reviewing them with staff, Planning Commission, and public,  creating project use, site, and design criteria that reflect the preferred alternatives or scope of possibilities including mandatory and optional criteria,  completing a MDNS environmental checklist to the satisfaction of city staff, Planning Commission, and City Council,  that is not appealed by the public, ---PAGE BREAK--- E-3 Appendix E: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  resulting in a pre-approved plan and design criteria for the project. These tasks require the city rather than the developer to commit the time and money necessary, even on non-complicated, non- controversial projects. Typically, the amount of time and cost necessary is less than what would be required of the developer as the intent is to determine the criteria for a satisfactory or desirable development and not the details. The out-of-pocket costs for city staff and/or consultants may be 3% or even less than the value of the completed project. On a complicated or controversial project, this may also involve:  completing a partial or full environmental impact statement (EIS) including possible studies and analysis of traffic, shoreline, soils, archaeological, or other element, and  entertaining an EIS appeal by another public agency or the public that may require additional clarifications or even studies,  sufficient for the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the criteria and any EIS or other approvals. These additional or protracted tasks can cost more than a non- complicated, non-controversial project but may still be 5% or even less than the value of the completed project and will ultimately be completed to the city and public’s satisfaction. When is a design/develop competition conducted? Once the property owner has entered into an option and the City Council has approved the plan and design criteria for the project as well as the EIS, the city will conduct a public workshop with potential developers. Potential developers include local developers who have or are interested in the property and project, as well as regional or even national developers who have experience and interest in the type of project being proposed. The latter are especially important if the proposed development project contents are of a character that local developers do not have much experience with or therefore possibly not much interest. The city will recruit local, regional, and national developers of interest. The purpose of the public workshop is to present and promote the property along with the pre-approved criteria, review a draft of the design/development competition process, and elicit developer suggestions, criticisms, and extent of interest in the project, design/develop criteria and process particulars, and timing of the competition. Depending on the suggestions received during the workshop, the city may revise the project proposal, development and competition criteria, the competition process, or other particulars – with City Council validation where needed. More importantly, the city can defer the start of the competition if developers indicate market timing is not good for the project or competition based on market conditions, financing availability, or other particulars. The city would then restart the process in coming months when another public workshop or developer contacts indicate timing is good and enough of them are interested to make the competition productive. How is a design/develop competition conducted? A typical design/develop competition is a 2-phase process including a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) followed by a Request for a Proposal from a short list of 3 teams. Request-for-Qualifications (RFQ) – begins when the city advertises and solicits a statement of qualifications from interested development teams which include a design architect, builder or developer, and financing agent if not the developer proper. The teams are asked to submit materials in a uniform format documenting their design, development, and financing experience with similar projects. The design and development (construction) team members are required to submit plans and photos of similar projects along with references. The development and financing team members are required to submit particulars concerning the financing, operation, management and other particulars of the ---PAGE BREAK--- E-4 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization (BB/RR) Plan projects they developed, sold, and still own and manage along with references. The teams may also be asked to provide an outline of the issues, opportunities, and possibly ideas (including summary sketches) of how they may develop the project in accordance with the project design and development criteria. All the submittals are reviewed, and a short list of the 3 most qualified teams are asked to participate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) phase. If, however, the submitting teams are determined to not have sufficient experience, financial capability, or other qualifications to provide 3 most qualified teams, the design/develop competition may be suspended to be tried again until 3 highly qualified teams do make applications. Request for Proposal (RFP) – begins when 3 highly qualified teams are found to have submitted RFQs and are selected to participate in this 2nd phase. The teams are provided the City Council approved detailed design and project criteria, the particulars concerning conduct of this phase, and typically an honorarium with which to finance any extra submittal requirements out of the ordinary for a development proposal – such as detailed models, renderings, and other illustrative materials for public display. The teams are given 90 days with which to develop their detailed proposals that conform to the design and project criteria. Each team is provided an opportunity of reviewing their proposal development at the 30 and 60 day intervals, however, so that they can confirm their proposals conform with the criteria and to resolve any questions they may have as they create their concepts. By the end of the 90 day proposal period, each team must submit their proposal in a uniform format documenting how their concepts meet the design and project criteria along with a bond certifying they have committed financing sufficient to fund their project and an agreement that they will initiate development within a 30 day time period if they are selected. Who conducts the design/develop competition? The competition process is overseen by a Competition Coordinator or Advisor who may be a city staff person or most frequently a design professional experienced with conducting this type of competition. The Competition Coordinator manages a Competition Jury which may be composed of technical persons drawn from city staff or consultants, design professionals (architect, landscape architect, planner, economist), and community representatives (Planning Commission, City Council, and/or citizen at large). The Competition Jury members are selected and/or validated by City Council. The Competition Jury reviews the teams that submit qualifications in the first phase RFQ, selects the 3 finalists to compete in the second phase RFP, reviews and determines if the RFP submissions meet or exceed design and project criteria, and makes recommendations to City Council concerning the selection or ranking of the final 3 proposal submissions. The Competition Jury may also recommend to City Council that the:  RFQ phase be deferred if they find there are not enough highly qualified team submissions to effectively conduct the second phase RFP; and  to not select any RFP submissions if they find they do not conform with the design and project criteria, or if the submittals are not of high enough quality to merit a selection. Does the public have an opportunity to comment on the design/develop competition submittals? The RFP submittals are formally presented to the Competition Jury during a public workshop where the Jury members conduct a question and answer session about the submittals with the competing teams. The submittals are then put on display where the public may review them, submit questions, and vote for their favorite. The questions ---PAGE BREAK--- E-5 Appendix E: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan and rankings which are submitted from the public display are provided to the Competition Jury for consideration. Who makes the final decision on the design/develop competition submittals? The Competition Coordinator and Jury document their findings and recommendations to City Council during a public session. City Council reviews the Jury’s recommendations but reserves the right to make a final selection including the option of not making any selection if Council determines the submittals are not of the quality desired from the competition. What happens when a final decision on the design/develop competition submittals has been rendered?  If City Council decides no submittals are of sufficient quality - the competing teams are paid their honorarium and the competition is terminated. Has this ever happened – no, never when qualified submittals have been received from the first phase sufficient to have 3 highly qualified teams willing to compete for the second RFP phase. Has an RFP submittal ever been disqualified – yes, but rarely since the competing teams are given the opportunity of reviewing their conformance with the design and project criteria at least 2 times during the development of proposals.  If City Council accepts the rank ordering of the proposals from the Competition Jury - the developer of the first ranked team’s bond is accepted that includes funds with which to pay the option to purchase the property from the property owner as well as reimburse the city for the full cost of pre-planning and approving the project, and conducting the design/develop competition including the honorariums. Under the terms of the RFP process, the developer is given 30 days with which to finalize and commence development particulars. In the event the developer of the first ranked submittal does not fulfill the terms within the 30 day period, then the developer forfeits their right to develop and the Council awards the project to the second ranked submittal, and so on. What is the risk/benefit to the property owner of the design/develop competition approach? The primary risks or disadvantages to the property owner are:  The property is off the market while the city resolves design and project criteria, completes EIS requirements, conducts public hearings, and pre-approves the criteria for the property’s development - which can be for an extended period of time on a very difficult or controversial project. However, the time required to resolve development prospects on the property would be the same under the conventional approach and will likely be faster if the city is the prime motivator.  If what can be readily approved for development on the property is not considered to be marketable or profitable enough to interest other developers. However, the city will need to resolve what would be necessary to make the property marketable or feasible prior to initiating the design/develop competition – something it would not have to do if a private developer were seeking to do this under the conventional approach. This may include financial incentives, such as the public financing of required infrastructure, if necessary.  The initial public workshop indicates the development community (or enough qualified developers) is not ready to begin the design/development competition process. However, they would likely not be interested if they were pursuing the property under the conventional approach either. The delay that could occur before the competition is re-initiated would be the same if the developer were pursing the property under the conventional approach also.  Should the Competition Jury decide there were no qualified teams submitting for the RFQ phase to warrant continuing, and/or should the Competition Jury and City Council decide no ---PAGE BREAK--- E-6 Appendix A: Design/Develop Competition Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad Revitalization (BB/RR) Plan proposals were of a quality sufficient to award the project then the property owner has tied up the property during the competition process without a sale. While this is possible, it is not likely given the safeguards built into the process to prevent it from proceeding unless there is assurance of a successful outcome. Even so, the property owner will have gotten a development concept resolved, potential project pre- approved including EIS issues, and a clear resolution of what will be required for a successful property sale under a succeeding design/develop competition or even conventional property sale if the owner prefers – at no cost to the property owner. Under the design/develop competition, all decisions rest with City Council rather than the property owner or developer. This is true under the conventional approach if the project proposal is different than what can be allowed under current zoning and development regulations – ie., is a difficult, or unusual, or unresolved property and proposal. City Council must have the authority to make the decisions under the design/develop competition since the city is optionally purchasing the property during the process and approving final development particulars. The principal upside of the design/development competition process to the property owner and developer is certainty and the short time required to resolve a successful process for no initial cost to the developer and a guaranteed sale price to the property owner on completion. The principal upside to the city of the design/develop competition process is the successful development of a private property by the private market for a quality project in a short period of time for a public cost that is reimbursed by the successful developer. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-1 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Appendix F: What is a 63-20 financing mechanism – and why should we use it to finance public facilities in the BB/RR Revitalization Plan? Conventional financing What are the conventional financing sources for public facilities proposed in the BB/RR Revitalization Plan? Washington state municipalities may finance capital improvements from the:  General Fund - which includes the proceeds from property taxes, sales taxes, and funds received from other governments through grants or loans and/or  Councilmanic Bonds - which are Council approved, or  General Obligation (GO) Bonds - which are voter approved. What is the General Fund and what are the implications of using it to finance BB/RR public facilities and developments? General Funds are used to finance most government operations including staff, equipment, capital facility, and other requirements. The General Fund is derived from property and sales taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues including state and federal grants, service charges and fees, fines and forfeitures, and other miscellaneous revenues. Of all these sources, the property and sales taxes generate the most monies for the General Fund, and in addition to intergovernmental revenues (state and federal grants) are the sources for financing public improvements and facilities.  Property tax - under Washington State’s constitution cities may levy a property tax rate not to exceed $3.10 per $1,000 of the assessed value of all taxable property within incorporation limits. The total of all property taxes for all taxing authorities, however, cannot exceed 1.0% of assessed valuation, or $10.00 per $1,000 of value. If the taxes of all districts exceed the 1.0% or $10.00 amount, each is proportionately reduced until the total is at or below the 1.0% limit. In 2001, Washington State law was amended by Proposition 747, a statutory provision limiting the growth of regular property taxes to 1.0% per year, after adjustments for new construction. Any proposed increases over this amount are subject to a referendum vote. The statute was intended to control local governmental spending by controlling the annual rate of growth of property taxes. In practice, however, the statute can reduce the effective property tax yield to an annual level far below a city's levy authorization, particularly when property values are increasing rapidly. In 2010, for example, Kennewick’s effective property tax rate had declined to $2.17 per $1,000 of assessed value as a result of the 1% lid limit on annual revenue.  Sales tax - is the city's largest single revenue source and may be used for any legitimate city purpose. However, the city has no direct control over the taxing policy of this source of revenue. The sales tax is collected by the state and distributed among state and local jurisdictions. The sales tax proceeds, especially the city’s share, may fluctuate dramatically with general economic and local business conditions.  Intergovernmental revenue – includes state and federal grants or pass-through revenues, usually earmarked for specific programs, as well as funds from Kennewick to match grants and to finance improvements the city wishes to accomplish. Intergovernmental revenue grants and loans can be significant, depending on the program, Kennewick competitiveness, and the extent to which the program is adequately funded at the state and federal levels. Given present economic conditions, however, Kennewick should not ---PAGE BREAK--- F-2 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan depend on grants as a viable or major source of financing for facility acquisition and development over the short term. Capital improvements funding implications Kennewick has building and infrastructure construction requirements, but given the declining buying power of annual General Fund budgets, not had the capital resources available to initiate major construction projects from the General Funds or non-dedicated funds accounts. The 1% statutory limit on local property tax yields combined with the economic downturns impact on sales tax revenues and the sporadic and undependable nature of federal and state grants and revenue sharing prevents or discourages the city from making long term capital investments in infrastructure necessary to support the city’s development. The 1% statutory limit on the general fund levy in particular, severely curtails the city's ability to operate and maintain services and facilities even if the city utilized other means of providing capital financing. What are Tax Increment financing districts and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Several Washington State laws provide local jurisdictions the opportunity to create special districts to facilitate the development of the community by capturing new revenue from existing taxing structures. These new revenues are then “captured” to pay debt service on the bonds issued to enhance infrastructure to improve the community.  CRF: Community Revitalization Financing Act - the Washington State legislature created the Community Revitalization Financing (CRF) Act in 2001 authorizing cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a “tax increment area” and finance public improvements within the area by using increased revenues from local property taxes generated within the area. Under CRF provisions:  An increment area cannot be created without approval of the local governments imposing at least 75% of the regular property taxes within the area.  The incremental local property taxes under this program are calculated on 75% of any increase in assessed value in the increment area.  Any fire protection district with geographic boundaries in the increment area must agree to participate for the project to proceed.  CRF increment areas are created and administered at the local government level.  The CRF Act does not include a state contribution. There are currently 5 CRF increment areas located in Spokane County. While the CRF program can currently be used by Kennewick in the BB/RR area, the city’s proceeds from a limited local only tax increment are significant but not sizable. A BB/RR CRF would likely produce $600,000 in city tax increment revenue over a 20 year period that could be bonded assuming:  Property value (and incremental tax) increases up to 70% over the current base year in BB/RR over the next 20 years with the initial years very low and most new development happening toward the middle or end of this period,and  The port, school district, hospital district, irrigation district, and county may not participate by allowing their portion of the increased property tax revenue to be used for city CRF projects. Based on these assumptions, CRF proceeds are not sufficient enough to finance major BB/RR infrastructure improvements or facility development.  LIFT: Local Infrastructure Financing Tool Program – the Washington State legislature created the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) program in 2006 to finance local public improvement projects intended to encourage economic development or redevelopment. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-3 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan The LIFT program is similar to the CRF local tax increment option, except that it also includes an opportunity to utilize state as well as local tax increments. Under LIFT, a sponsoring jurisdiction (city, town, county, port district, or federally recognized Indian tribe) creates a “revenue development area” from which annual increases in revenues from local sales/use taxes and local property taxes are measured and used. Such increases in revenues and any additional funds from other local public sources are used to pay for public improvements in the revenue development area and are also used to match a limited amount of state contribution. The LIFT program is competitive since cities are competing to be awarded the state’s share of the sales, use, and property tax increment. Nine projects have been awarded state contributions under the LIFT program including Bellingham, Bothell, Everett, Federal Way, Mount Vernon, Puyallup, Vancouver, Yakima, and Spokane County. Given the dramatic decline in property, use, and sales tax revenues as a result of the economic downturn, the state does not have the discretionary monies to fund LIFT and has not renewed the LIFT program. The application process for the LIFT program is currently closed – any renewal of the program will require future legislative action and funding.  LRF: Local Revitalization Financing Program – the Washington State legislature created the Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) Program in 2009 authorizing cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a “revitalization area” (RA) and allowing certain increases in local sales and use tax revenues and local property tax revenues generated from within the revitalization area to be used for payment of bonds issued for financing local public improvements. The LRF program is similar to the CRF local tax increment option, except that like the LIFT program it also includes an opportunity to utilize state as well as local tax increments. Like the LIFT program, LRF is also competitive by which cities compete for the state’s share of tax proceeds. Thirteen projects have been approved for state contributions under LRF program including Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Federal Way, Kennewick (Southridge), Renton, Spokane, Tacoma, University Place, Vancouver, Wenatchee, Clark County, and Whitman County. As in the LIFT program, the dramatic decline in property, use, and sales tax revenues as a result of the economic downturn reduced the state discretionary monies with which to fund LRF and the state has not renewed the LRF program. The application process for the LRF program is currently closed – any renewal of the program will require future legislative action and funding. However, the LRF program can still be used though the tax increment would be limited to local sales, use, and property taxes (essentially CRF) without the major and substantial allocations possible with the state’s contribution. What are Special Revenues and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Special revenues are derived from state and local option taxes dedicated to specific expenditure purposes, such as the motor vehicle tax, motor excise tax, real estate excise tax, motel and hotel tax, public art, criminal justice, paths and trails, convention center, and the like. Some special revenues may be used to finance limited capital facilities, such as roads or parks, where the local option allows – such as the local real estate excise tax (REET) and/or under special circumstances Motel/Hotel or Tourism Taxes or Stormwater Utility Taxes if a project or program can be expensed as a direct extension or beneficiary of these accounts. Generally, however, the special revenues that are authorized by the legislature are project specific in nature and cannot be used for facilities that are not authorized or been specifically approved for such use when validated by the Council or by voter approval of the special option taxes. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-4 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  REET: Real Estate Excise Tax – RCW 82.46 authorizes local governments to enact up to 0.25% of the annual sales for real estate for capital facilities, and the Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes another 0.25% for capital facilities. REET revenues must be used solely for financing new capital facilities, or maintenance and operations at existing facilities, as specified in the capital facilities plan. An additional option is available under RCW 82.46.070 for the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas if approved by a majority of the voters of the county. The first and second REET may be used for the following capital facilities:  The planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, and storm and sanitary sewer systems, or  The planning, construction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks and recreational facilities. In addition, the second REET may be used for the following:  The acquisition of parks and recreational facilities, or  The planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of law enforcement facilities, protection of facilities, trails, libraries, administrative and judicial facilities, and river and/or floodway/flood control projects and housing projects subject to certain limitations. REET monies are a significant source of funds for public improvements and facilities, particularly since during good economic conditions they generate a fairly predictable annual revenue stream. If the REET revenue trend is constant and predictable, the annual revenues can be capitalized with a Revenue Bond and pledged against a specific improvement or project. However, this would negate using the REET monies on an annual basis for other emerging public facility requirements on an annual basis. During economic downturns, however, particularly in the housing market, REET revenues are subject to extreme fluctuations similar to the sales tax. In 2010, for example, Kennewick expects to generate $1,750,000 from REET 1 and 2. What are Councilmanic and General Obligation (GO) Bonds and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Debt service funds are derived from a dedicated portion of the property tax or general fund proceeds to repay the sale of Councilmanic (limited or non-voted) and/or General Obligation (GO or voted) bonds. Both types of bonds may be used to finance facility acquisitions, developments, and improvements – but not maintenance or operational costs.  Councilmanic (limited or non-voted) bonds - may be issued without voter approval by the Council for any facility development purpose. The total amount of all outstanding non-voted general obligation debt may not exceed 1.5% of the assessed valuation of all city property. Limited general obligation bonds must be paid from general governmental revenues – the General Fund. Therefore, debt service on these bonds may reduce the amount of General Fund revenue available for current operating expenditures and the financial flexibility the Council may need to fund annual budget priorities. For this reason, Councilmanic bonds are usually only used for the most pressing, short term, and limited amount of funds for capital improvement issues.  Unlimited general obligation (GO) bonds - must be approved by at least 60% of resident voters during an election which has a turnout of at least 40% of those who voted in the last state general election. The bond may be repaid from a special levy, which is not governed by the 1.0% statutory limitation on the property tax growth rate. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-5 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Total indebtedness as a percent of the assessed valuation that may be incurred by limited and unlimited general obligation bonds together, however, may not exceed: 2.5% - provided that indebtedness in excess of 1.5% is for general purposes, 5.0% - provided that indebtedness in excess of 2.5% is for utilities, and 7.5% - provided that indebtedness in excess of 5.0% is for parks and open space development. Monies authorized by limited and unlimited types of bonds must be spent within 3 years of authorization to avoid arbitrage requirements unless invested at less than bond yield. In addition, both bonds may be used to construct but not maintain or operate facilities. Facility maintenance and operation costs must be paid from General Fund revenue or by voter authorization of special annual or biannual operating levies or by user fees or charges. For this reason, GO bonds are used primarily for improvements that do not require high annual staffing, maintenance, or other requirements that must be financed from the General Fund. What are Enterprise Funds and can they finance BB/RR public facilities? Enterprise funds are derived from the user fees and charges levied for utility operations including water and sewer, storm drainage, regional water, solid waste, and cemetery. Enterprise revenues are used to pay operating costs, retire capital facility debt, and plan future replacement and expansion projects. Enterprise funds may be created for a public activity that has a revenue source sufficient to finance all costs. Enterprise funds have been used on a limited basis for golf courses, marinas, public markets, and similar self-financing operations. Enterprise Funds, however, are typically created to finance the continuing operation, maintenance, debt retirement, future development, and other costs for the public activity or facility after the facility has been financed using other sources of funds. Conventional project delivery methods What are the conventional or traditional methods of designing and building BB/RR public facilities? The conventional or traditional methods of designing and building public improvements and facilities include the Design/Bid/Build (traditional or conventional process), and for authorized cities and projects, the Design/Build method.  Design/Bid/Build - the design/bid/build or traditional method has been the prevailing project delivery system and has typically been used in Kennewick public works and facilities projects. Under the Design/Bid/Build process, the city hires a design team to develop drawings and specifications for the facility. Once completed, the design package is bid and the lowest responsible bidder is awarded a contract for the construction. The city uses in- house staff and the architect or engages the services of a professional construction manager to manage the process. Financing - the Design/Bid/Build approach utilizes conventional forms of financing including General Funds, Special Revenues, ---PAGE BREAK--- F-6 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Bonds, or Enterprise Funds – depending on which apply to the type of project.  Design/Build & Bridging - Washington State RCW 39-10-51 Design/Build Procedure authorizes a process that has been used in the private sector for many years and provides an alternative to the traditional Design/Bid/Build process. RCW 39-10-020 Alternative Public Works Contracting Procedure stipulates the requirements for a project to qualify to use the Design/Build method as an alternative contracting procedure. At the present time, any city may use Design/Build provided that the project:  Must be over $10,000,000 in value,  Must be approved by the Washington State Project Review Board, and  The public entity (or their consulting team) must have experience with Design/Build. Under the Design/Build method, Kennewick hires one company to design and build the public works project or facility. Design/Build contracts are typically negotiated once the city has defined the project program and the contract terms can be established. The Design/Build contractor guarantees a maximum project cost based upon the city’s program and a development agreement defining the project scope and terms. Typically, the Design/Build approach may be 10-15% cheaper than the Design/Bid/Build approach since the process is faster, relies on performance-based design/constructions solutions rather than a fixed and typically most expensive pre-designed solution, and the final product must be completed for a predetermined maximum cost. Bridging - is a hybrid form of Design/Build that gives Kennewick greater control over the design process and end product. Under the bridging approach, the city’s staff and/or consulting team more fully defines the design documents prior to the development agreement being negotiated. The documents specify the project's functional and aesthetic requirements, but the details of the construction technology are described with performance specifications leaving the specific methods up to the Design/Build team. The construction drawings are prepared by the Design/Build/contractor's A/E who becomes the architect of record. Financing – like the Design/Bid/Build approach, however, the Design/Build method utilizes conventional forms of financing including General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise Funds – depending on which apply to the type of project. Hybrid project delivery/financing methods What are the hybrid methods of designing, building, and financing BB/RR public facilities? The hybrid methods that combine the design, building, and financing requirements into a single process include Developer/Lease-to-Own (LTO) and Nonprofit Developer/63-20 Lease to Own (LTO). ---PAGE BREAK--- F-7 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Developer/Lease-To-Own (LTO) - the Developer/LTO approach is very similar to the Design/Build delivery method and is available to public entities through RCW 35.42.220. The city typically selects a developer through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The city and the winning RFP developer enter into an agreement by which the developer is responsible for turnkey development of the project and then leases back the facility to the city with an option to purchase. In some cases, the city may pre-select a property and assign the purchase option to the developer. The developer chooses the design and construction delivery approach that best suits the developer’s interests. Under the Design/Build method the developer provides in-house design and construction services or forms a Design/Build partnership or contract with an architect and contractor. Bridging and other elements of the Design/Build method are applicable to the Developer/LTO approach. Since the Developer/LTO is using the Design/Build approach the developer is guaranteeing a maximum project cost based upon the city’s program and a development agreement defining the project scope and terms. In addition, like the Design/Build approach, the Developer/LTO may be 10-15% cheaper than the Design/Bid/Build approach since the process is faster, relies on performance-based design/constructions solutions rather than a fixed and typically most expensive pre-designed solution, and the final product must be completed for a predetermined maximum cost. Since the developer is using the Design/Build method under this approach rather than the city, the city will realize the savings in time and cost possible under this approach even though the city is not formally using Design/Build under current state legislation. Financing – unlike the Design/Bid/Build and Design/Build approaches, however, the Developer/LTO method does not require conventional forms of pre-financing using General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise. The developer finances the project and the city buys it back using an annual payment allocation from General or Special or Enterprise Funds or typically from annual revenues generated by the facility’s tenants, user fees, or other charges. Since the Developer/LTO approach does not require pre-financing using Bonds or other public forms of funding, the annual lease/purchase payments are not considered debt and do not accrue on the city’s liability ledgers. Since the developer is financing the project, the city will be paying the developer an interest rate (or profit margin) that will be higher than if the city financed the project using public monies, even borrowed public monies, using Councilmanic, General Obligation (GO), or Revenue Bonds. The higher interest rates will reduce but not entirely negate the development savings possible under the Design/Build as opposed to the Design/Bid/Build approach. On public sector lease-to-own projects, 2 financing structures are typically utilized: Certificates of Participation (COPs) and the "63- 20" structure. In a COP arrangement the developer directly receives a share of the lease revenue in return for financing the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-8 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan  Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO - the "63-20" structure is an IRS established financing mechanism that allows a not-for-profit corporation to be formed that can issue tax-exempt bonds to fund public or nonprofit projects. The not-for-profit holds title to the property and improvements the same as a developer does under the Developer/LTO method. The city enters into a lease agreement with the not-for-profit and finances the bond debt through lease payments, typically over a 20 to 30 year period. At retirement of the debt, the property title is turned over to the city the same as in the Developer/LTO method. The nonprofit developer may be an inactive partner, generally providing the financing while the city essentially develops project criteria, the Design/Build RFP, and other construction administration particulars. The nonprofit may also be an active partner, performing the Design/Build RFP, construction administration, and all other developer duties as well as providing financing. Since the nonprofit developer is essentially the project landlord, it can also be contracted by the city to provide typical landlord duties including maintenance and operations which are then folded into the overall lease/purchase agreement. Since the nonprofit developer is using the Design/Build method under this approach rather than the city, the city will realize the savings in time and cost possible under this approach even though the city is not using Design/Build under current state legislation. Certificates of Participation (COP) are often used during the initial construction stage of a project and later converted to a "63-20" structure at occupancy. In some cases, the city may elect to issue GO bonds and buyout the lease early. Financing – like the Developer/LTO method, the Nonprofit/63-20 LTO method does not require conventional forms of pre-financing using General Funds, Special Revenues, Bonds, or Enterprise. The nonprofit developer finances the project and the city buys it back using an annual payment allocation from General or Special or Enterprise Funds or typically from annual revenues generated by the facility’s tenants, user fees, or other charges. Since the Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach does not require pre- financing using Bonds or other public forms of funding, the annual lease/purchase payments are not considered debt and do not accrue on the city’s liability ledgers. Since the nonprofit developer is financing the project by issuing tax exempt 63-20 (Revenue) Bonds, the city will be paying the nonprofit developer an interest rate that will be same as if the city financed the project using public monies, even borrowed public monies, using Councilmanic, General Obligation (GO), or Revenue Bonds. Since the nonprofit interest rates will be the same as if the city financed the project, the nonprofit developer (and therefore the city) will realize the 10-15% development savings possible under the Design/Build as opposed to the Design/Bid/Build approach. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-9 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan Which of these hybrid methods of building and financing BB/RR public facilities are available to Kennewick? Both hybrid project delivery/financing systems are available for use on public works by Kennewick.  Developer/Lease-To-Own (LTO) - the Developer/Lease-To-Own method is available to Kennewick in accordance with RCW 35.42.220. The RCW allows a lease of real property with an option to purchase. The services of a developer can be engaged for project financing and to hold title to the property.  Developer/63-20 LTO - the Developer/63-20 LTO method is also available to Kennewick in accordance with RCW 35.42.220. The RCW allows a lease of real property with an option to purchase from a nonprofit developer. In accordance with the IRS 63-20 ruling, the services of a developer can be engaged and a not-for-profit established to issue tax-exempt bonds for project financing and to hold title to the property. Which one of these alternative methods of building and financing BB/RR public facilities is the most effective and the least cost? The Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO is the most effective and least cost project delivery method since it incorporates the financial and structural advantages of the IRS 63-20 mechanism. The use of a 63- 20 not-for-profit corporation as the lease-to-own delivery vehicle allows the project to be financed with tax-exempt bonds while maintaining the benefits of the Design/Build method of private development. The Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach provides access to the efficiencies of the Design/Build method that may not otherwise be available under the alternative contracting procedure limitations defined in RCW 39-10-020. The success of 63-20 projects is derived from the enhanced team relationships, improved project control, and the allocation of risk possible by using the Design/Build approach. The 63-20 LTO method is being used with increasing frequency on municipal, county, and state projects in Washington due to its lower interest and financing costs, and the savings in time and cost possible by having the nonprofit developer utilize the Design/Build approach. What examples are there of Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO projects in Washington State? While the Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO method has been available to finance the construction of public and non-profit facilities for close to 40 years, it is only recently that public agencies have begun to utilize the mechanism in public/private development partnerships. The Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach in Washington State has been used or is currently contemplated for:  King County King Street Center  Pierce County Road Improvements  Issaquah Utility Corridor  Auburn Utilities Project  King Street Station  Harborview 401 Broadway Building  Redmond City Hall  Tacoma Narrows Bridge  4 University of Washington projects  King County Chinook Building & Goat Hill Parking Garage  Patricia Bracelin Steel Memorial Building  Ninth & Jefferson Tower  Washington State Department of Information Services Office & Data Center Campus  Metro’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Village at Overlake  Marysville Civic Center/City Hall  Shoreline Civic Center/City Hall  Issaquah District Courthouse  Tashiro-Kaplan Live Work Artist Lofts  Washington State Employees Credit Union Headquarters  University of Washington Husky Stadium Redevelopment ---PAGE BREAK--- F-10 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan BB/RR project applications Based on the analysis above, the Nonprofit Developer/63-20 LTO approach could be used for the following BB/RR projects:  Public Market – including land acquisition, site, and building developments using the Historic Downtown Kennewick Partnership (HDKP) nonprofit or a similar nonprofit entity to develop, operate, and maintain the facility financing annual payments from an Enterprise Fund with lease agreements, rental and user fees, and other charges.  Incubator Buildings – including land lease and eventually land acquisition, site, and building development using a nonprofit to develop, operate, and maintain the facilities financing annual payments from an Enterprise Fund with tenant lease agreements, rental and user fees, and other charges.  Overlook Park – including land acquisition, site, and building development using a nonprofit to develop and maintain the facility financing annual payments from concessions and the General Fund’s parks and recreation accounts.  Infrastructure development including the relocation of Columbia Park Trail – including any land acquisition, site, and construction costs using a nonprofit to relocate and construct new roads, utilities, and other improvements financing annual payments from developer impact, design/develop competition awards, and late-comer fees. Which process should Kennewick use to select a developer – an RFQ or an RFP? The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) approach bases the selection of a developer on the experience and projects the developer has completed elsewhere then negotiates a contract with the preferred team. The Request for Proposal (RFP) approach asks for an RFQ, short lists the applications based on experience, then asks for specific proposal based on project criteria (including price) and then makes a selection conditioned on the proposal response. Following is a point by point comparison of the two approaches: RFQ RFP Selection criteria Focus on team Focus on solution Objective Select a partner Meet project criteria (mandatory and optional) Product Successful negotiation Successful project Measurement Team’s project record elsewhere Proposal’s contents in relation to project performance criteria Terms of agreement Whatever parties agree to in regards: Plan Design Uses $ - cost RFP requirements for: Plan Design Uses $ - cost Amended on selection Back-up options If fail to reach terms, go to 2nd choice and restart negotiation process Go to 2nd choice Go to 3rd choice Back-up consequences Duplicate cost Lost time Public embarrassment if fail to reach terms Assumes 2nd and 3rd choices are of equal quality – otherwise, redo process Public involvement Minutes/hearing following final negotiation details – not transparent Open house on proposals Peoples polls Comments from juries Minutes/hearing on ---PAGE BREAK--- F-11 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan final selection Selection committee Public officials Technical jury Design jury Public officials Cost Low initial RFQ Can be very high to negotiate terms and solutions High initial RFP which is reimbursed by winning developer Low to implement Risk Control and power passes to developer and “Catch 22” results: Can’t accept terms Can’t afford failure Can’t control damage to market image Solutions are not of a quality content Do not accept submittals Refine/redo process at a later time with different parties In sum RFQ is a reactive process RFP is a proactive process Procedural steps RFQ - minimum qualifications Submit examples Rank submittals – choose preferred party to negotiate Ask for proposal Evaluate proposal impacts Negotiate particulars Approve final terms RFQ – minimum qualifications Submit examples and preliminary ideas Rank submittals – choose 3 for RFP Issue RFP or w/o honorarium) Monitor progress Review submittals (technical/design juries) Present to public Rank final submittals Select preferred solution Recent project examples  Burien – downtown  Monroe – Kelsey Creek  Bellingham – Port Hotel  Snohomish Co –  Seattle – Westlake  WA – NRB & L&I  Kenmore – CBD  Burien – downtown 2  Puyallup – city hall/MXD Paine Field hotel  Bremerton – waterfront w/hotel and convention  Seattle – Public Safety site  King County – Admin Bldg Redevelopment  Public Facilities District – Hotel RFP  Federal Way Downtown As shown, the RFQ is a reactive process that places the developer in charge of the negotiations and the outcome, while the RFP is a proactive process that places the city in charge to ensure a successful outcome and project. ---PAGE BREAK--- F-12 Appendix F: 63-20 Design/Delivery Kennewick Bridge-to-Bridge/River-to-Railroad (BB/RR) Revitalization Plan